BioWare Wanted to Make a Spy Thriller

[immortalfrieza]

Our industry is still evolving, there will always be studios/companies that want to exploit a growing medium.

I've heard that before, and I consider it to be just cop-out to justify what the video game industry does. It doesn't matter if an industry is 1 year old or 10 decades, there's no excuse whatsoever for blatant obviously stupid and explotive business practices that screw over the customer. In any other industry companies that "exploit a growing medium" and make it anywhere near as obvious as the video game industry does now either change their way of doing things before long or die out, quickly. However, for SOME reason the video game industy seems to be the ONLY industry that I know of where screwing the customer is not only expected and encouraged, but flanted. I wouldn't be surprised if someday some big company just came right out and said something akin to "Ha ha! You want video games? Pay out the nose for no reason and deal with unecessary frustration or you ain't gettin nothin! NA! NA! NA!" At least industries like the tobacco industry did everything they could to hide the fact that their customers were little more than walking wallets to them until the government stepped in and made them be honest, the video game industry doesn't even do that much, and since the video game industry isn't dangerous, it's unlikely the government will sort them out.

Nonetheless, I see them like a SMCV(Saturday morning cartoon villain) because they act surprised when their schemes fail due to outcry, also their monumentally stupid ad campaigns for Dead Space 2 & Dante's Inferno are prime examples of their idiocy and ignorance.

I'd bet anything that at this point that EA and companies like it know how much they are reviled and instead of improving themselves like sensible people would are instead being stupid and pissing people off deliberately for the attention it gets them. I wouldn't doubt that without those ridiculous ad campaigns that nowhere near as many people would have heard of Dead Space 2 and Dante's Inferno as they have. They're going for "no such thing as bad publicity" in other words. That will bite them in the ass eventually, but until then we're probably just going to have to deal since there's nothing anybody can really do, even a massive number of people getting up in arms and complaining about it seems to be playing right into their hands.

 

[ScrabbitRabbit]

Alpha Protocol had the right idea, but its story and characters never reached the level of appeal that BioWare's Mass Effect or Dragon Age franchises held.

I felt that Alpha Protocol's story and characters were far superior to either of those games. It was the borderline-unplayableness that brought it down.

I don't know about everybody else, but based on my personal experience I have yet to play a game that everybody says is massively buggy and unplayable and ever encounter a SINGLE bug, that includes Alpha Protocol. I hear it all the time but have yet to actually have it happen. I'd give a reason for why I think this happens, but a couple people from a thread on the GOG.com forums said it better than I ever could:

[Delixe: I bought this at release and encountered no bugs that I could see. There was a concerted 'fan' backlash over the game and they grossly exaggerated the flaws. Seems to be something about the Obsidian name that drives people to over-exaggerate every little bug because Obsidian make buggy games derp.

New Vegas had the same reception with people calling it unplayable which was a complete lie. People seem to have a mental block that makes them forget the very unplayable state Fallout 3 shipped in. In most respects Obsidian improved a lot of the problems with the Gamebryo engine that plagued Fallout 3.]


[predcon: The people who complained were spoiled toddlers who nitpicked about bars and railings not being fully rendered in true HD or some shit like that, and even when so far as to post comparative screencaps with closeups and the like. These jokers are of the same ilk as those who complained about KOTOR 2, which I found enjoyable, broken quests aside. Every RPG has broken quests and red herrings, it can't be helped.]

As for people complaining about games like Alpha Protocol not selling well as justification for why this game probably wouldn't have worked, OF COURSE it didn't sell well! That always happens to great games that don't get enough advertising.

Obsidian are one of my favourite developers and I, too, had very few issues with New Vegas in spite of it's reputation (and I also found Fallout 3 to be in a much worse state). In Alpha Protocol I'd frequently fall through the floor and opening a door would sometimes alert every single guard in the mission.

On top of that, I wasn't just referring to the bugs. Even without them, the gameplay (outside the narrative choices it gives you) just isn't very good.

 

[GiantRaven]

Alpha Protocol had the right idea, but its story and characters never reached the level of appeal that BioWare's Mass Effect or Dragon Age franchises held.

*looks at The Illusive Man*

*looks at Henry Leland*

I'm sorry, what? Surely that should be the other way around.

 

[Frostbyte666]

Damn I probably would have enjoyed that. Though I'm going to say with alpha protocol I would love a sequel. I had no issues with bugs in the game, though will admit the combat got really annoying at points, kind of like the bosses with DE:HR. the 1 thing that I adored though was the time limits on decisions, this to me added depth and suspense, instead of ME where I spent half an hour debating whether I should kill or reprogram the geth heretics and reduced the ethical considerations to a list of pros and cons.

 

[elilupe]

but because EA didn't want to 'risk' a new IP instead of milking Dragon Age and Mass Effect, they could never try it.

This happened in 2009.Seeing as back then Dragon Age was an as yet unreleased brand new IP and Mass Effect 2 had yet to be released I'm not sure how you can accuse EA of milking them

I don't want to come across as a EA supporter but there are enough legitimate reasons to dislike them without making stuff up you know

Heh. You're right, I should probably check my facts a bit better next time ^.^
I still dislike EA though...

 

[DustyDrB]

Look guys, I love Alpha Protocol as much as anyone. But that doesn't mean I don't want another studio, BioWare included, to try to make an espionage RPG. At worst, it'll turn out to be a bad game that I can ignore. At best, it could turn out to be amazing and we'd have a great entry in a woefully under-represented setting in games.

And what ? bladnify it? Yeah great idesa!
Sorry to bioware but i fidn their games a tad baklnd although a]enjoyabkle.

...don't drink and type.

 

[LordMonty]

Bioware/EA are a crashing plane atm nothing surpirises me. I seriously want them to put the fire out and pull up before anything else jumps off into oblivian but i'm not holding my breath Any more failure by bioware and they may start feeling the EA death squad breaking down there neck. Any sure the idea will get made one day by some cool people and it'll probally be a kickstarter

 

[Norix596]

Interesting idea, it could be like a more in-depth exploration of the bits of Splinter Cellouble agent when you have to balance your cover with your objective and manage your perceptions of loyalty to both sides.

 

[Something Amyss]

What they mean is a first person shooter with occasional stealth elements, right?

Let's look at it from EA's perspective. Launching a new IP is a bit of a risk, because you don't have the brand name to go off of. So, they look at the market, and see how similar games have done. Most likely, the games they looked at were Alpha Protocol and The Bourne Conspiracy.

Alpha Protocol had mixed reviews, and has sold 700,000 copies on the PS3, 360, and PC since its release 2 years ago. Now, those numbers may not include Steam sales, so I'll be generous and bump it up to an even 1 million copies.

Bourne Conspiracy received mixed reviews, and has sold a grand total of 750K copies worldwide on both the PS3 and 360 combined to date, 4 years after its release.

Looking at those numbers, can you blame EA for not getting behind a game concept that has been tried twice, and failed both times?

Of course, the other element one tends to look at is the pedigree of the studios. While Mass Effect 3 has soured from people from Bioware, they're still "known" for quality titles.

People talk about good business decisions and these things being all about the money, yet EA's been through a huge stock drop and lost a lot of investor confidence, which is a huge element here. They've plateaued (at best) financially, even with steps like online passes. The safe bet is no longer the safe bet if you catch my meaning. And in 2009, they were already having these problems.

Can I blame EA for lack of faith in a studio with a solid pedigree, with ME3 years off, for thinking it'd do as awful as Alpha Protocol? Kinda. Can I blame EA for deciding to take the safe approach, even though it's clear it doesn't please investors or increase their intake of cash? HELL YES.

 

[dancinginfernal]

EDIT: Wrong thread. Woops.

IGNORE ME.

 

[crazyrabbits]

This is why you dont sell yourself to EA.

They didn't. EA bought Elevation Partners, a consortium that owns several developers and companies, one of which is Bioware. The developer didn't have any say in the matter.

I wish people would stop perpetrating this myth. You want to blame someone, blame John Riccitello. He used his status as board member of Elevation to leverage the funds needed to buy the company (and essentially stage a takeover of Bioware).

OT: All new IP's are a risk. That's the whole point. The only variables are how much money you're willing to invest into the product, and whether the product breaks even. Given EA's current climate of pumping tens of millions into games that shouldn't have that level of funding (or don't need it in the first place), then expecting them to do 4-5 million units in sales with the same old, tired marketing campaigns, it's no wonder why they're so hellbent on driving their established franchises into the ground.

It's probably a good thing that Agent never got off the ground. AP did a phenomenal job of tailoring the different skill trees and decisions to entirely different gameplay experiences, far beyond that of even the original ME. I'm sure that if Agent was released, it would be subjected to the same "day-one DLC/monetization strategy/tie-in game" garbage that EA has shoveled out over the last five years.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Given the misplaced priorities and ass-clenching timetables EA puts its big games on, I don't think Bioware could have handled the extra load. (between Mass Effect 3 and SW:ToR, most of Bioware's talent was tied up already)

I mean, they handed Dragon Age 2 off to the B-listers; I think we all saw how well that turned out.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

I think EA's problem as far as making new games in concerned isn't that they're evil (and this is a revelation I've only just had, because I really did think they were evil), it's that they don't think a good game can come from an underperforming genre. Look at the other spy thrillers we've had. The Bourne Conspiracy, Alpha Protocol...James Bond? But the gist is, no universally acclaimed excellent games. EA thinks 'Well, guess spy thrillers just aren't a good idea' and stays away from them, preferring to pump out the same tired shit with more and more ways to ream their customers, because it's guaranteed money. They just don't understand what people like in games. And I'm hoping eventually, as everyone collectively realises that they've played all of EA's games before, that attitude will kill them. They're not even making a massive profit as it is, as a business. So their risk-averse attitude is unfortunate but understandable, it's just a real pity that it has affected Bioware, as all but the most naive of us knew it would.

 

[Metalrocks]

thats ?A for you. always afraid of something new. it might not sell well and they dont make the amount of money they usually would get.
the idea sounds great and i would have gotten it as well and might enjoyed it. but no, ?A wants just a simple action driven game and making the other companies, who have actually good ideas, look bad.

 

[vasiD]

Alpha Protocol had the right idea, but its story and characters never reached the level of appeal that BioWare's Mass Effect or Dragon Age franchises held.

Disagree. Obsidian and Sega just didn't have the massive advertising budget that EA has.

 

[Nghtgnt]

It would be interesting to see what EA's exact reasoning was.

How saturated was the "spy game" market at the time? There was a Splinter Cell game in '06 (Double Agent), a Hitman game (sort of similar concepts) in '06, and by '09 Splinter Cell: Conviction must have been in production. Alpha Protocol was also in production at the time, so I can see if the executives thought the market was already saturated (or going to be) enough to make it difficult for a new IP. Additionally, how well did these games sell? Was there a large enough market for the genre to justify the investment?

Who exactly from Bioware would have worked on it? Was one of the reasons for turning this down so that resources could be allocated to SW:TOR (not sure when production on that one started)? Would allocating people to this project have taken resources away from the Dragon Age and Mass Effect franchises? ME2 was in production in '09, and a lot of DLC for DA:O and the Awakening expansion was likely still in production, no to mention they were probably starting production on DA2 soon thereafter.

I like to rag on EA as much as the next guy, but in their shoes I would have likely done something similar - focus on developing the two IPs (maybe 3 with Star Wars) you've got going (and making them GOOD), and put the spy game on the back burner as the next new series to work on once ME and DA are finished (again, assuming there's a market for the genre).

 

[Chairman Miaow]

So it would pretty much be Alpha Protocol with worse writing?

I was trying to think of a way to say this, then I stumbled upon your comment. Thanks.

 

[Milanezi]

Ehhhh... I don't know why, but I feel this would've been a bad game anyway...