EA Gave BioWare "Complete Creative Control"

[Mike the Bard]

I can accept that they gave Bioware complete creative control over their games, it is never wise to mess with your golden goose when there is no need too. But that doesn't mean they were given the proper time to make a golden egg for EA. Doesn't matter how much creative control you have: if your not given the time to exercise your control, then you end up with a crappy game anyway.

 

[grey_space]

You know that there are plenty of other reasons for someone to move on from their job other than 'their bosses are arseholes' right? If I remember rightly, this was the guy who left to start brewing beer, so just maybe, after so many years of working in the videogame industry, he was just burned out and wanted to try something new. Even if that not the case, the possibilities are still wide open. Perhaps he moved house somewhere further away and didn't want to commute, or perhaps there was a change in family priorities, and so on and so forth.

Remember, this guy isn't beholden to EA anymore. They're not paying him, he's not under contract. In short, he owes them nothing. So, if he had anything majorly negative to say about the company, what exactly would be stopping him from coming out and saying it?

All good points and sure you are more than entitled to think that way if you like. I decide not to however.

Both he and his partner decide to finish at the same time for random reasons. Sure. Maybe EA didn't exercise complete control creatively like this guy said but they did create the deadlines. And So after leaving the industry the guy decides to destroy his legacy by admitting that basically every bad decision his company made recently came from...him?his partner? Fairies? Or possibly the corporate monolith whose policies Bioware seemingly started following shortly after being taken over by said corporate monolith.

Like I said, it just seems a bit bullshitty to me. But fair enough it could be just an innocent few positive comments an amateur brewer might say about his ex bosses just after they had been voted most evil company or...whatever.

Call me a cynic

 

[Something Amyss]

Which they say as if it is a good thing.

Well, the developer autonomy is a good thing. The end results in this case are not.

 

[hazydawn]

The reason Mass Effect 3 had such a shitty ending is because the script got leaked three or four months before it was released and they rushed to change the ending. While the move to change the ending was kind of stupid since the release date was so near its sort of understandable.

I also heard that, but believe it was a theory of why they might have decided against the other ending. Forgot where I heard about it.
Did Bioware themselves gave such a statement? Because I doubt that.
Please give me a source.

But even if that was the reason, Bioware might have completed the new ending without rushing the game if not for EA and it's commercial greed.
Or maybe not, we'll never know for certain. It's just that some sort of pattern seems to appear everywhere EA is involved.

 

[Mausthemighty]

Okay this statement doesn't really change a thing. DA2 and ME3 are still disappointing games and I have no more faith in Bioware, and will not buy from them anymore.

I don't believe EA is purposely this evil, but it's obvious they don't have a good track record with the companies they take over and don't have a clue what they are doing wrong.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

Oh I don't doubt it. The problem is, creative control doesn't mean much when you have a deadline that says you need to release the game a year after it's predecessor.

 

[Little Gray]

The reason Mass Effect 3 had such a shitty ending is because the script got leaked three or four months before it was released and they rushed to change the ending. While the move to change the ending was kind of stupid since the release date was so near its sort of understandable.

I also heard that, but believe it was a theory of why they might have decided against the other ending. Forgot where I heard about it.
Did Bioware themselves gave such a statement? Because I doubt that.
Please give me a source.

But even if that was the reason, Bioware might have completed the new ending without rushing the game if not for EA and it's commercial greed.
Or maybe not, we'll never know for certain. It's just that some sort of pattern seems to appear everywhere EA is involved.

You are probably sort of right on the commercial greed part. Delaying a game that close to its deadline is very costly and not something anybody really wants to do.

 

[Johnson McGee]

Corporate culture will filter down regardless of how much creative control remains in the development house. Restrictive deadlines, sales expectations, audience 'broadening', online models all eat at the quality of these developers products. Creative directors and management gradually is replaced by the top brass or are driven out by an oppressive culture to found their own enterprises.

This happens over time, Westwood for example, I consider C&C3 to be the height of the series and that was published after EA bought them out. RA3 was pretty good, but then C&C4 is universally bad and now the next C&C is a stand-alone F2P with no promising features.

 

[faefrost]

EA aren't evil. They're just idiots.

But ALL of the games that they have put out since have the unmistakable feel of rushed development, early release, poor QC, and a certain patern of corporate oversight that we have seen far to often in EA acquired companies.

Mass Effect 2? I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that came out after they were bought. Fair enough on the corporate oversight point, I suppose; it's undeniable that it was made to be much more of a shooter to appeal to a broader demographic, but to be perfectly honest, it was a better game for it. And the other points just don't apply, in my opinion: Mass Effect 2 was a phenomenal game.

Fair point. But Mass Effect 2 was almost entirely developed while Bioware was still independent. It was released shortly after the merger, so all the work had already been done, and it was developed under Bioware's internal schedules. DA2 was the first game they developed under the blanket of EA. And I think we can all see what happened there.

 

[Genocidicles]

I don't buy it.

Why else would Bioware shove a completely unnecessary multiplayer mode into a singleplayer franchise, if not to appease their corporate paymasters?

 

[Smooth Operator]

Well usually when several people match up their public statements so neatly it means Sincerity isn't one of their favorite cereal brands.
And the "complete creative freedom" line has come from every EA dev that got called out on their bullshit oddly reminiscent of standard EA practice... obviously we couldn't say they were influenced at all.

 

[ThriKreen]

Fair point. But Mass Effect 2 was almost entirely developed while Bioware was still independent. It was released shortly after the merger, so all the work had already been done, and it was developed under Bioware's internal schedules. DA2 was the first game they developed under the blanket of EA. And I think we can all see what happened there.

Nope. History says otherwise:

EA buys Bioware: October 11, 2007
ME1: November 16, 2007
DA:O: November 3, 2009 (although it was announced way back in like 2004)
ME2: January 26, 2010
DA2: March 8, 2011

While you can safely assume some planning and pre-production on ME2 could have happened earlier in 2007 (since not everyone needs to work on finalizing content), the bulk of the development is fully in the era of EA.

 

[MpSai]

I have a hard time believing EA didn't have at least some influence in the rush to be emulate COD in the final Earth mission (boy was the military jargon ramped up to 11 there) and every single female character, even the ship's computer, suddenly boasting double D's.

 

[Dryk]

1. Buy company
2. Give complete creative control
3. Set high sales targets and tight deadlines
4. Have loud conversation with friends about how sure is great for meeting high sales targets
5. PROFIT
6. Company takes the blame

No doubt someone in this thread has or will say that this guy is only saying this "under duress".

As disingenuous as it is in my head I keep thinking "abused spouse"

 

[hazydawn]

You are probably sort of right on the commercial greed part. Delaying a game that close to its deadline is very costly and not something anybody really wants to do.

Countless games have been delayed even more than once, it's not as if this practice would be unimaginable.
It's perfectly clear that it hurts them in their wallets to delay a game, but they should be looking at the long term consequences of not doing so in the favor of money. Namely upsetting their costumers/loyal fanbase and detoriating their reputation. And EA clealry always makes this hard business choices in the favor of money. Sure they want to make money, that's understandable but it's likewise understandable for the people buying their games to get pissed for that very reason. This "Companies exist to make money" argument to justify everything a company does and shut up everybody against it is just stupid.

 

[Pinstar]

Bioware had complete CREATIVE control. Development deadlines are not part of the "Creativity" so when EA gave them a release date, Bioware was forced to rush their game and get 'creative' with the ending rather than flesh it out better if they had more time.

Lie of omission. EA is good at this.

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

Am I the only one who thought of this:

EA: We nee multiplayer and we need it YESTERDAY.
Bioware: But Mass Effect is about single player experience. We don't nee-
EA: All our games MUST have multiplayer. Do it. Now.
Bioware: No, we're not gonna-
EA: *glowing eyes of doom* ASSUMING DIRECT CONTROL
Bioware: YES MASTER.
EA: AND YOU WILL MAKE THE IMPORTANT STORY CHARACTER DLC!
Bioware: YES MASTER.

I'm pretty sure that's what went down.

 

[likalaruku]

I already know that The Consumerists' award show is fueled solely by negative hype & that the people who vote on it value entertainment over necessities. If TC had any sense, they'd segregate the companies into to categories & give out two Worst awards.

 

[Xdeser2]

Just goes to show how disconnected the Devs and Publishers are with the actual gamers.

We only get to see things from the perspective of the games released and the odd industry shakeup that makes the news. We have our ingrained ideals of how it "Should" operate and how it "Does", and then there's what the Publishers and Devs think based on flow charts and demographics. Ergo, none of us can handle that Bioware made a couple of subpar games so we blame EA (not that there isn't any truth to that idea)

I think there's a severe lack of communication on both sides :/