Bioware Appeals For Calm Regarding Mass Effect 3 Multiplayer

[ecoho]

And you DO NOT have to play it to get the best singleplayer ending! So [i/]please[/i] shut up and let the rest of us go back to deluding ourselves into thinking that humanity is actually smart.

Also, it was really hard to read this article with that image.

You don't HAVE to let me convince you not to delude yourself. You're perfectly capable of tuning out any negativity that you choose. So PLEASE shut up and let the rest of us go back to criticizing them for making stupid PR decisions!

See? "I don't want to understand your side of the argument, so PBBBBBT!" Doesn't really hold up as an argument, does it? It doesn't resolve anything or bring about understanding, it's just childish.

There's always a separate team for the single-player and a separate team for the multiplayer. It doesn't matter if they have two studios working on it or not, there's only so much budget to go around, and the tech team that both sides have to report back to has to screw around with a lot of networking tech in addition to the main engine driving the game, which they've previously stated is getting a big overhaul. It's no wonder the game had to be delayed, but the real point is, resources are resources. That extra manpower costs something--very notably something that I hear was diverted from the budget of Dragon Age 2.

I know the arguments that your side keeps spouting: "It'll ruin the SP due to less resources" or "It'll ruin ME cuz I don't want MP" seem to be the most common. Where did I say I didn't want to understand the other sides argument? All I did was inform someone about what BioWare had said twice now. Then I explained in "SP terms" what ME multiplayer was for those advocates of argument #2. I know that two separate teams work on multiplayer and singleplayer, HOWEVER they are usually in the same studio. Now that BioWare has two studios working on this that means they have twice as many resources and can double the work they produce each man-hour. Regardless of that, I agree with you that resources are always limited and I'm worried about argument #1 proving true as well, but I have a cautiously optimistic outlook on things like this. You don't, that's cool, but that doesn't mean you have to insult me for having a different view on life just to make a point.

They do not have twice as much resources. They have the same resources. They are just dividing it between two development teams. It's very simple.

This will always be true. One thing that is almost universally true in game development is that you never have enough budget/development time to put every feature into a game that you would like. Something always gets left out. By devoting resources to multiplayer, Bioware (or more likely EA) have made the conscious decision to divert those resources away from more or improved single player content that could have been included. This is true of all games, of course, but the reason people make a big deal of it with this game is because the series has been single player thus far. Will Mass Effect 3 be a bad game because of this decision? Probably not. I still plan on buying the game. But the argument against multiplayer does have some merit.

sorry to burst your bubble but thats not how it works. each studio is given a budget they work with said budget. so the amount of money that was first approved for ME SP is still ONLY being used for the SP! Now the MP studio was given another budget for JUST THE MP! i hope that clears this up

Which means that said money spent on two studios was available. That money was spent to develop a single game with a single pricepoint that will not have changed due to the fact that multiplayer was added. The chart still applies.

uhm no it doesnt. see and im not meaning to be insulting but the chart you use is just misleading it should be +n not minus as the budget was increased with the adding of the MP.

And once again, that money was spent on the production of a single product, not an entirely new product. EA felt that ME3 was worth investing n amount of dollars on and some of that money was invested into multiplayer. That the money was spent on an entirely different development team is irrelevant. Did Eidos have "extra" money because they outsourced their boss fights? No, they spent part of the game's budget on the boss fights. There is no such thing as extra budget if all budget is used.

omg let me try i and do mean TRY to explain this to you. they had a budget for JUST the SP, which they used to make it. you with me so far? Now after they made what we will know as ME3s single player they took this idea for the MP to EA and told them how much MORE money they would need to put it in and guess what? they got it. Bioware never planed to have MP in ME3 but they liked the idea and added it in after finishing the rest of the game which is why it was delayed. now if you want to say they took more time to release it to add the dam MP then yes your right but to say that the budget was effected is just not factual.

 

[Scars Unseen]

And you DO NOT have to play it to get the best singleplayer ending! So [i/]please[/i] shut up and let the rest of us go back to deluding ourselves into thinking that humanity is actually smart.

Also, it was really hard to read this article with that image.

You don't HAVE to let me convince you not to delude yourself. You're perfectly capable of tuning out any negativity that you choose. So PLEASE shut up and let the rest of us go back to criticizing them for making stupid PR decisions!

See? "I don't want to understand your side of the argument, so PBBBBBT!" Doesn't really hold up as an argument, does it? It doesn't resolve anything or bring about understanding, it's just childish.

There's always a separate team for the single-player and a separate team for the multiplayer. It doesn't matter if they have two studios working on it or not, there's only so much budget to go around, and the tech team that both sides have to report back to has to screw around with a lot of networking tech in addition to the main engine driving the game, which they've previously stated is getting a big overhaul. It's no wonder the game had to be delayed, but the real point is, resources are resources. That extra manpower costs something--very notably something that I hear was diverted from the budget of Dragon Age 2.

I know the arguments that your side keeps spouting: "It'll ruin the SP due to less resources" or "It'll ruin ME cuz I don't want MP" seem to be the most common. Where did I say I didn't want to understand the other sides argument? All I did was inform someone about what BioWare had said twice now. Then I explained in "SP terms" what ME multiplayer was for those advocates of argument #2. I know that two separate teams work on multiplayer and singleplayer, HOWEVER they are usually in the same studio. Now that BioWare has two studios working on this that means they have twice as many resources and can double the work they produce each man-hour. Regardless of that, I agree with you that resources are always limited and I'm worried about argument #1 proving true as well, but I have a cautiously optimistic outlook on things like this. You don't, that's cool, but that doesn't mean you have to insult me for having a different view on life just to make a point.

They do not have twice as much resources. They have the same resources. They are just dividing it between two development teams. It's very simple.

This will always be true. One thing that is almost universally true in game development is that you never have enough budget/development time to put every feature into a game that you would like. Something always gets left out. By devoting resources to multiplayer, Bioware (or more likely EA) have made the conscious decision to divert those resources away from more or improved single player content that could have been included. This is true of all games, of course, but the reason people make a big deal of it with this game is because the series has been single player thus far. Will Mass Effect 3 be a bad game because of this decision? Probably not. I still plan on buying the game. But the argument against multiplayer does have some merit.

sorry to burst your bubble but thats not how it works. each studio is given a budget they work with said budget. so the amount of money that was first approved for ME SP is still ONLY being used for the SP! Now the MP studio was given another budget for JUST THE MP! i hope that clears this up

Which means that said money spent on two studios was available. That money was spent to develop a single game with a single pricepoint that will not have changed due to the fact that multiplayer was added. The chart still applies.

uhm no it doesnt. see and im not meaning to be insulting but the chart you use is just misleading it should be +n not minus as the budget was increased with the adding of the MP.

And once again, that money was spent on the production of a single product, not an entirely new product. EA felt that ME3 was worth investing n amount of dollars on and some of that money was invested into multiplayer. That the money was spent on an entirely different development team is irrelevant. Did Eidos have "extra" money because they outsourced their boss fights? No, they spent part of the game's budget on the boss fights. There is no such thing as extra budget if all budget is used.

omg let me try i and do mean TRY to explain this to you. they had a budget for JUST the SP, which they used to make it. you with me so far? Now after they made what we will know as ME3s single player they took this idea for the MP to EA and told them how much MORE money they would need to put it in and guess what? they got it. Bioware never planed to have MP in ME3 but they liked the idea and added it in after finishing the rest of the game which is why it was delayed. now if you want to say they took more time to release it to add the dam MP then yes your right but to say that the budget was effected is just not factual.

Actually that's the first time you tried to explain anything, and if that is, in fact, how it worked out, then I agree there is a difference. Is this actually documented anywhere? I can't imagine that it's common for a developer to finish a game, then request more money to add more features (made by different developers) and actually get said money. I mean delays happen, but usually its because development/testing is taking longer than expected, not because they finished and just didn't feel like releasing the game.

 

[Brian Hendershot]

Maybe I am a horrible person but I am actually excited for the multiplayer. It means that three friends and I can join up and play Mass Effect 3 together

 

[Zeraki]

That's not what they said when they announced it.
I'm quoting the "Bioware finally confirms and details Mass Effect 3 multiplayer" article from this very site here:

These efforts will have a direct impact on the player's "Galactic Readiness" meter, which shows how well-prepared the Galaxy is to fend off the Reaper assault. Thus, success in the co-op mode will also provide players with an alternative way of getting a perfect ending in the single player game.

So which is it, Bioware?

It says right there that the co-op is an alternative way of getting the perfect ending. You don't need to play multiplayer in order to experience everything the singleplayer offers. The author even said at the end of that article that the co-op is completely optional.

Spoiler

BioWare Finally Confirms and Details Mass Effect 3 Multiplayer

Mass Effect 3 really is getting multiplayer, but don't worry, it's entirely optional.

After lots of rumors and speculation - a lot of which turned out to be true - BioWare has confirmed that Mass Effect 3 [http://www.amazon.com/Mass-Effect-3-Xbox-360/dp/B004FYEZMQ/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1318332515&sr=8-2] will contain co-op multiplayer gameplay as well as the usual fighting of ancient robots and their minions in the single player campaign.

Writing on the BioWare forums [http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/323/index/8481789/1], community manager Chris Priestly said that Mass Effect 3's co-op mission would run parallel to the main story and allow up to four friends to fight together to liberate territory from the clutches of the enemy. Players will be able to create a co-op character from a variety of classes and races, including Turians, Asari, and Krogans.

These efforts will have a direct impact on the player's "Galactic Readiness" meter, which shows how well-prepared the Galaxy is to fend off the Reaper assault. Thus, success in the co-op mode will also provide players with an alternative way of getting a perfect ending in the single player game. BioWare is also rolling out the Mass Effect: Galaxy at War system, which Mass Effect 3's co-op is just one part of, along with other, as-yet-undisclosed, elements. Players will be able to impact their Galactic Readiness in a number of ways through Galaxy at War, with other "platforms and interfaces" to be announced in the coming months.

Priestly also made it clear that the development of the multiplayer had not had an adverse effect on the single player mode, as BioWare's new Montreal studio had been brought in to help ensure the game was as good as it should be. "Both studios work together as partners, lead by the core Mass Effect team, unified in a single vision," Priestly explained. "Under the direction of Casey Hudson and other team veterans, both studios make contributions to both the single player and multiplayer modes in Mass Effect 3."

"Rest assured that no compromises were made to either of these modes in the development of Mass Effect 3," he added.

Understandably, the reaction to the news has been rather mixed, with some loving the idea of the idea of Mass Effect multiplayer, others hating it, and plenty more falling somewhere in between. Personally, I'm cautiously optimistic; my main concern was that multiplayer would detract from the single player game, but it looks like BioWare was way ahead of me. With that concern out of the way, it's a lot easier to appreciate the multiplayer for what it is: an optional part of the game that sounds like it could be fun.

Mass Effect 3 comes out for PC, PS3, and Xbox 360 on March 6th.

Source: MCV [http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/mass-effect-3-s-galaxy-at-war-multiplayer-detailed/086258?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+mcvuk%2Fstream+%28MCV%3A+Home+Stream%29]




Permalink

 

[Kopikatsu]

I really feel bad for BioWare. It seems like their fanbase is prepared to scream about how the game is ruined forever whenever BioWare changes or even adds something.

I know. But it's not like people would be content with the same exact game released year after year with only minor graphical upgrades. Right?

...Right?

 

[stranamente]

It just seems so pointless. Everything i've heard about it so far makes it out to be a stripped down version of Horde mode. Why would I want to play that? No, seriously, why would anyone choose to play Mass Effect's version of a game mode that is significantly inferior to the version found in Gears of War or Halo (Or pretty much any other multiplayer-centric game these days).

It just feels tacked on, as if it were just "expected" of them. If you know it's not going to be a big part of the game, and you know it's not going to be something people will keep coming back to, why include it at all?

I agree with him completely.

I hope EA is pleased now. With their stupid ideas.
Is there a publisher around the world who actually knows something about the game they support?

 

[MercurySteam]

That picture is pure gold.

I was a bit sceptical about ME3 online, but they've made it so that nothing dampens the SP experience so I don't see the harm. I will still try it out of course, I mean, who doesn't want to play as an Asari, Krogan or Turian?

 

[The Bandit]

first they add the "very optional" Kinect use, then the "very optional" multiplayer... my main fear is that Mass Effect 3 ends ruined because it tried to be too much of everything... also I forsee the "ultimate dick move" of adding achievements to the "very optional" multiplayer :S

Yeah, because achievements aren't optional...?

 

[Metalrocks]

I was a bit sceptical about ME3 online, but they've made it so that nothing dampens the SP experience so I don't see the harm. I will still try it out of course, I mean, who doesn't want to play as an Asari, Krogan or Turian?

lol, you got a point there. playing garrus or liara etc. sounds like a ncie thing. even when im happy enough with my shepard.

 

[Rad Party God]

Oh gee, I heard those BioWare fans are just as open minded and calm as the Sonic fans and they embrace change with open arms!

 

[WonderWillard]

I love Mass Effect so much, but sometimes I really fucking hate the fans of it. Or just Bioware fans, because they are so unbelievably bitchy. The sequel to Dragon Age wasn't quite as good as the first, they all flip shit and have a meltdown. OPTIONAL multiplayer is announced for Mass Effect 3, and Bioware assures us that it was made by a separate team, so literally nothing is being taken away from the single player. I see virtually nothing wrong with this, because if it works and its fun, then sweet I get to play ME3 with my friends, and if it doesn't work and its not fun, then I'll just keep on playing the singleplayer. Bioware fans need to seriously chill the fuck out.

 

[Dargocitfer]

And once again, that money was spent on the production of a single product, not an entirely new product. EA felt that ME3 was worth investing n amount of dollars on and some of that money was invested into multiplayer. That the money was spent on an entirely different development team is irrelevant. Did Eidos have "extra" money because they outsourced their boss fights? No, they spent part of the game's budget on the boss fights. There is no such thing as extra budget if all budget is used.

omg let me try i and do mean TRY to explain this to you. they had a budget for JUST the SP, which they used to make it. you with me so far? Now after they made what we will know as ME3s single player they took this idea for the MP to EA and told them how much MORE money they would need to put it in and guess what? they got it. Bioware never planed to have MP in ME3 but they liked the idea and added it in after finishing the rest of the game which is why it was delayed. now if you want to say they took more time to release it to add the dam MP then yes your right but to say that the budget was effected is just not factual.

Actually that's the first time you tried to explain anything, and if that is, in fact, how it worked out, then I agree there is a difference. Is this actually documented anywhere? I can't imagine that it's common for a developer to finish a game, then request more money to add more features (made by different developers) and actually get said money. I mean delays happen, but usually its because development/testing is taking longer than expected, not because they finished and just didn't feel like releasing the game.

I don't have any specific insight into this issue, but I have dealt with large corporations and budgets before. What is probably closer to the truth is that the first ME3 team could have begged and pleaded and swore that they could make the coolest game *EVAR* with a full Gilbert and Sullivan Operetta production in the middle if they could just have a *tiny* bit more budget, and the masters at EA would say, "No way. This is your budget. This is all you get."

Then, someone pointed out that if they tacked a Multiplayer option on, they might get X more sales, and then EA decreed that a 2nd budget be created for the Multiplayer team.

I would be very surprised if *any* originally allocated ME3 budget was diverted to create the Multiplayer piece.

 

[Clonekiller]

For crying out loud people. Casey Hudson has an excellent track record, and has continually expressed his desire to fully realize the Mass Effect experience for the players. He delivered on that with Mass Effect 1 & 2. Have a little faith will ya?

 

[ecoho]

And you DO NOT have to play it to get the best singleplayer ending! So [i/]please[/i] shut up and let the rest of us go back to deluding ourselves into thinking that humanity is actually smart.

Also, it was really hard to read this article with that image.

You don't HAVE to let me convince you not to delude yourself. You're perfectly capable of tuning out any negativity that you choose. So PLEASE shut up and let the rest of us go back to criticizing them for making stupid PR decisions!

See? "I don't want to understand your side of the argument, so PBBBBBT!" Doesn't really hold up as an argument, does it? It doesn't resolve anything or bring about understanding, it's just childish.

There's always a separate team for the single-player and a separate team for the multiplayer. It doesn't matter if they have two studios working on it or not, there's only so much budget to go around, and the tech team that both sides have to report back to has to screw around with a lot of networking tech in addition to the main engine driving the game, which they've previously stated is getting a big overhaul. It's no wonder the game had to be delayed, but the real point is, resources are resources. That extra manpower costs something--very notably something that I hear was diverted from the budget of Dragon Age 2.

I know the arguments that your side keeps spouting: "It'll ruin the SP due to less resources" or "It'll ruin ME cuz I don't want MP" seem to be the most common. Where did I say I didn't want to understand the other sides argument? All I did was inform someone about what BioWare had said twice now. Then I explained in "SP terms" what ME multiplayer was for those advocates of argument #2. I know that two separate teams work on multiplayer and singleplayer, HOWEVER they are usually in the same studio. Now that BioWare has two studios working on this that means they have twice as many resources and can double the work they produce each man-hour. Regardless of that, I agree with you that resources are always limited and I'm worried about argument #1 proving true as well, but I have a cautiously optimistic outlook on things like this. You don't, that's cool, but that doesn't mean you have to insult me for having a different view on life just to make a point.

They do not have twice as much resources. They have the same resources. They are just dividing it between two development teams. It's very simple.

This will always be true. One thing that is almost universally true in game development is that you never have enough budget/development time to put every feature into a game that you would like. Something always gets left out. By devoting resources to multiplayer, Bioware (or more likely EA) have made the conscious decision to divert those resources away from more or improved single player content that could have been included. This is true of all games, of course, but the reason people make a big deal of it with this game is because the series has been single player thus far. Will Mass Effect 3 be a bad game because of this decision? Probably not. I still plan on buying the game. But the argument against multiplayer does have some merit.

sorry to burst your bubble but thats not how it works. each studio is given a budget they work with said budget. so the amount of money that was first approved for ME SP is still ONLY being used for the SP! Now the MP studio was given another budget for JUST THE MP! i hope that clears this up

Which means that said money spent on two studios was available. That money was spent to develop a single game with a single pricepoint that will not have changed due to the fact that multiplayer was added. The chart still applies.

uhm no it doesnt. see and im not meaning to be insulting but the chart you use is just misleading it should be +n not minus as the budget was increased with the adding of the MP.

And once again, that money was spent on the production of a single product, not an entirely new product. EA felt that ME3 was worth investing n amount of dollars on and some of that money was invested into multiplayer. That the money was spent on an entirely different development team is irrelevant. Did Eidos have "extra" money because they outsourced their boss fights? No, they spent part of the game's budget on the boss fights. There is no such thing as extra budget if all budget is used.

omg let me try i and do mean TRY to explain this to you. they had a budget for JUST the SP, which they used to make it. you with me so far? Now after they made what we will know as ME3s single player they took this idea for the MP to EA and told them how much MORE money they would need to put it in and guess what? they got it. Bioware never planed to have MP in ME3 but they liked the idea and added it in after finishing the rest of the game which is why it was delayed. now if you want to say they took more time to release it to add the dam MP then yes your right but to say that the budget was effected is just not factual.

Actually that's the first time you tried to explain anything, and if that is, in fact, how it worked out, then I agree there is a difference. Is this actually documented anywhere? I can't imagine that it's common for a developer to finish a game, then request more money to add more features (made by different developers) and actually get said money. I mean delays happen, but usually its because development/testing is taking longer than expected, not because they finished and just didn't feel like releasing the game.

ok im sorry for going a little off the deep end on you that was writen on a bad day and i apologize.

as to what i finally explained i cant remember were i read it but Bioware had already had the SP well into beta when EA asked them to do the MP they told EA that they needed more money to do it and well lets just say EA has learned not to say no to Bioware when it comes to flagship games.

 

[A Gent of Villainous Intent]

It just seems so pointless. Everything i've heard about it so far makes it out to be a stripped down version of Horde mode. Why would I want to play that? No, seriously, why would anyone choose to play Mass Effect's version of a game mode that is significantly inferior to the version found in Gears of War or Halo (Or pretty much any other multiplayer-centric game these days).

You can play as a Krogan.

Your arguments are invalid.

 

[A Gent of Villainous Intent]

These people who complain are obviously not fans of Mass Effect at all, not have played ANY of the games ever.

Because you can play as a Krogan.

And these people are complaining.

BioWare has just given you all the greatest gift they could ever possibly give and you people complain.

Congrats, you've forced me to fly each Studio to give everyone there hugs cause YOUR HORRIBLE.

 

[Whispering Cynic]

As long as the singleplayer won't be negatively affected I don't mind the co-op. But in all seriousness, I want the option to play it alone. I never cared much for the fumbling meatbags stumbling into my line of fire all the time. I get enough of those in TF2, I don't need them in Mass Effect as well.