Dragon Age: Inquisition

[Halaster]

Frank Gibeau talking about Dead Space 3 (and why Dead Space 4 is most probably, well, dead) and reported in every game site. Obviously each studio and each title has its own budget and we can't get data on that, but EA's MO seems to be 1) whatever the starting point, double the budget vs the original 2) triple the sales targets 3) close studio when the sales targets are not met. Rinse and repeat.

[alanschu]

 

 

"EA has taken over and everything is about the finances now unfortunately. Seems like much of the soul of the company as a whole has left". These suggest to me that EA is heavily present and very hands on in the development process.

 

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).

 

 

 

 

EA has officially said they need each game to sell 5m to be profitable, and at the moment, DA:O probably (just) managed that out of all of BioWare's releases.

 

Can you show me where EA mentioned this?  I have seen the number strewn about, but I thought the word used was "expectations."

[Elerond]

5 million sold games should mean that game brings at least 100 million dollars for publisher ($20 per sold copy). I am bit sceptic that every game that EA produces cost  hundred million dollars to make and advertise.

[Halaster]

I believe that's the way humans form opinions - fuzzy logic. You get a two tons of data, analyze it on a broad level to discern a pattern, apply 3 ounces of instinct (flavoured with bias - that's why we talk and debate rather than exchange data and absolute truths) and voila! you have Your Personal Opinion. When someone asks you to defend it, you select the facts you have seen in the two tons of data that support YPO, not the ones that refute it.

 

Obviously as a BioWare employee you have access to more data / higher quality data and if we were machines, I would certainly synchronise my data and YPO to match yours. However we are human, and intuition tells me that you have an interest in presenting a version of the truth that maximizes your chances of receiving the highest possible number of salary transfers from BioWare ULC, which in turn depends on people's perception of a piece of software called DA:I. Therefore your views factor into mine with an Impairment Factor of 0.4

Re the 5m sales thing - it was Gibeau on why Dead Space 4 is probably dead (post above).

[Elerond]

Concerning Dead Space 3 and cancellation of Dead Space 4

 

 

Update: EA has told GameSpot the VideoGamer report is "patently false." "While we have not released sales data for Dead Space 3, we are proud of the game and it continues to be an important IP to EA," added the publisher.

http://uk.gamespot.com/news/ea-denies-dead-space-series-cancellation-6404823

 

So I wouldn't go to say anything sure about their sale targets.

 

 

https://twitter.com/Monkey_Pants/status/308954581465980930

Edited September 22, 2013 by Elerond

[Orogun01]

Concerning Dead Space 3 and cancellation of Dead Space 4

 

 

Update: EA has told GameSpot the VideoGamer report is "patently false." "While we have not released sales data for Dead Space 3, we are proud of the game and it continues to be an important IP to EA," added the publisher.

http://uk.gamespot.com/news/ea-denies-dead-space-series-cancellation-6404823

 

So I wouldn't go to say anything sure about their sale targets.

 

 

https://twitter.com/Monkey_Pants/status/308954581465980930

Someone should put EA to rest due to poor sales.

[Monte Carlo]

 

My concern about EA is whether or not they can create an RPG with soul, as opposed to churning one out on a conveyor belt. This is why the indie scene is gaining ground. Indie games have unique concepts, they take risks, they have soul. Most AAA releases don't. It seems EA wanted to try the annual release thing with DA2...didn't work out to well.

 

What do you mean when you say an RPG with a soul? Can you elaborate a little around this requirement

 

 

Presumably James Brown is a NPC.

[Zoraptor]

Nah, he wants more music from Jeremy Soule, as that is the mark of a quality Bioware game. Think he's wrong about the Indie issue though, the last movie sucked and since EA has the Star Wars license they'd be most likely to make any more Indie games as well.

[anubite]

FY09 -$1,088M

FY10   -$677M

FY11   -$276M

FY12     $76M

FY13     $98M

 

I don't see these figures as being useful to talk about in a critical mathematical kind of sense - yes we have two consecutive years of profits, maybe you can say that's enough to attribute a trend of recovery, but it's not significant enough. Compare $100M to the amount of money Nintendo or Activision posts every year. Look at how THQ folded and how Capcom is on the verge of collapse. When was the last hit from EA that wasn't a sport title? What just happened to EA's sports monopoly lately? They were making 2,000M before 2009, the fact they're barely turning a profit now suggests more than a simple loss - it suggests they can't ever return to being that profitable again. The better way to look at these numbers it to say, "For the last four years EA has been making 1,000M to 2,000M less money than they could be." That's the way I see it - they are so far in the hole that they are no longer a major player on the market. Potentially. They have enough assets they can stay in the game for a while, but as it stands, they're sinking. And as they sink, they'll have to bail out developres that aren't performing well. If BioWare can't post 5M sales like Dead Space or the other studios EA has closed down - it's goodbye BioWare. And it's that pressure that drives changes at BioWare. It's that pressure that shifts the focus of development.

 

These numbers are not suggestive that EA needs 'restructuring'. Restructuring - the cannibalistic behavior EA has done since '09 - has been their way of not posting record losses, but restructuring will never get them to post 2,000M profits again. They needs hits and EA hasn't had any in any recent memory of mine - their most successful franchises - that is, their most consistent ones - have been football/soccer titles. And those are starting to slump too with fatigue from over releasing. Will the Sims $ ignite excitement in consumers again? Will people want to rebuy all those same expansion packs for the third or fourth time? Will Sim City ever carry the prestige it once did for consumers? What properties are left for EA? They aren't creating any new hits to my knowledge.

Edited September 24, 2013 by anubite

[Nepenthe]

Who is?

[Volourn]

"I must say Alan, I am puzzled by your eagerness to 'correct' people who are trying desperately hard to give BioWare a get out of jail free card. I hate to be captain obvious here, but those blaming EA are the naive remnants (of your formerly rabidly loyal fanbase) that would have bought DA:I on the slender hope that maybe - just maybe - it was all evil EA that led to the (at best) mediocre schlock that was DA2 and ME3, and that good old 'real' BioWare was fighting a silent rearguard action in the defence of the genre/quality/IP integrity. Extinguishing those notions closes an awful lot of doors..."

 

BIO doesn't exist as a company. It is a division of EA. EA owns it 100%. Everything BIO has done since EA bought them was done because EA told them to do it. EA *is* BIO. This is a fact.

[Volourn]

"Frank Gibeau talking about Dead Space 3 (and why Dead Space 4 is most probably, well, dead) and reported in every game site. Obviously each studio and each title has its own budget and we can't get data on that, but EA's MO seems to be 1) whatever the starting point, double the budget vs the original 2) triple the sales targets 3) close studio when the sales targets are not met. Rinse and repeat."

 

You just defeated your own point. Your point is that EA expects games to make 5mil sales no matter and shown DS as truth  yet then claim DA2 and ME3 didn't make 5mil sales.. Then, why is EA making DA3 and a new ME game if they consider them failures?  How can you pretend you make sense when your own logic doesn't follow its own inner logic? L0L

[alanschu]

yes we have two consecutive years of profits, maybe you can say that's enough to attribute a trend of recovery, but it's not significant enough.

 

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.

 

 

 

 

They were making 2,000M before 2009, the fact they're barely turning a profit now suggests more than a simple loss - it suggests they can't ever return to being that profitable again.

 

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.

 

 

 

 

The better way to look at these numbers it to say, "For the last four years EA has been making 1,000M to 2,000M less money than they could be." That's the way I see it

 

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.

Edited September 24, 2013 by alanschu

[Monte Carlo]

@ Alan, what is the current view in your world with regards to managing DLC in RPGs? I assume a rich DLC strategy is a big part of Inquisition.

 

I say this as someone who isn't particularly hostile to DLC per se  (as i'm slightly older I don't suffer from the entitlement issues of the twentysomethings that everything should be free).

 

You don't have to be Bioware specific, but is the current view that bite-size is more profitable and customer-friendly, or do you think we'll see some sort of halfway-house to XPs?

 

My question is partially prompted by the Diablo 3 XP content and ethos. It strikes me as agreeably old-skool and I'm definitely buying it.

[Tale]

 

EA has officially said they need each game to sell 5m to be profitable, and at the moment, DA:O probably (just) managed that out of all of BioWare's releases.

 

Can you show me where EA mentioned this?  I have seen the number strewn about, but I thought the word used was "expectations."

 

People are playing the phone game with a comment about Dead Space 3. It was said that Dead Space 3 needed to sell 5 million for the franchise to continue.

 

And that was it. It wasn't said that it needed 5 million to be profitable. It wasn't said that all EA games need to do that. Just to keep doing Dead Space games.

[Zoraptor]

That does happen rather a lot though, one of the biodocs made a comment about aiming for 10 million sales as their target a few years ago and that quickly became Bioware needing to sell 10 million a game or EA would shut them down.

 

It's the confirmation bias thing really. Any available facts will be interpreted in a way that supports the argument/ viewpoint.

[alanschu]

what is the current view in your world with regards to managing DLC in RPGs? I assume a rich DLC strategy is a big part of Inquisition.

 

I say this as someone who isn't particularly hostile to DLC per se  (as i'm slightly older I don't suffer from the entitlement issues of the twentysomethings that everything should be free).

 

You don't have to be Bioware specific, but is the current view that bite-size is more profitable and customer-friendly, or do you think we'll see some sort of halfway-house to XPs?

 

My question is partially prompted by the Diablo 3 XP content and ethos. It strikes me as agreeably old-skool and I'm definitely buying it.

 

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.

Edited September 24, 2013 by alanschu

[NOK222]

 

 

 "if you feel a game developer/publisher is taking advantage of you, then don't play their games." 

 

That's what Stanley "End of Line" Woo used to say before when he couldn't argue anymore. 

[Nepenthe]

He was right.

[Halaster]

He was right.

Ultimately yes, of course.

 

But I think it's in both the developer's and gamer's interest to talk about things without a boycott. If I would be happy to pay $60 for some software, but feel that presence of ancillary feature X is a dealbreaker, then I'd rather say that - and 'argue' with the line ending ninja - than quietly not buy. The developer may incorrectly take any absence of purchase from me to be a result of say, the lack of feature Y.

Edited September 25, 2013 by Halaster

[NOK222]

He was right.

 

Well yeah, that's like saying the moon orbits the Earth, both true facts. 

[Nepenthe]

Yet there are still people who disagree with both.

[Keyrock]

 

He was right.

 

Well yeah, that's like saying the moon orbits the Earth, both true facts. 

 

That's what THEY want you to think.

[NOK222]

 

 

He was right.

 

Well yeah, that's like saying the moon orbits the Earth, both true facts. 

 

That's what THEY want you to think.

 

Alex Jones? Is that you?

[alanschu]

But I think it's in both the developer's and gamer's interest to talk about things without a boycott. If I would be happy to pay $60 for some software, but feel that presence of ancillary feature X is a dealbreaker, then I'd rather say that - and 'argue' with the line ending ninja - than quietly not buy. The developer may incorrectly take any absence of purchase from me to be a result of say, the lack of feature Y.

 

I didn't say you have to quietly not buy.

 

As a counterpoint, you also send a very mixed signal if you buy the DLC despite feeling taken advantage of.  Buying the base game but not the DLC will say something too, but I have a hard time encouraging someone to buy something that they feel is incomplete and that they feel is not right.  Ultimately, both of those feelings will lead to disappointment by the purchaser.

 

If you are someone that doesn't like the idea, but still enjoy the base game for what it is, then the "don't buy it" doesn't really apply to you.

Edited September 25, 2013 by alanschu