EA Gave BioWare "Complete Creative Control"
- Thread starter StewShearerOld
- Start date
Somehow this is even worse than simply admitting "yeah, they made us push a lot of things into our game. They 'were' paying us after all".
Because seriously, what kind of publisher just hands a group of people a bunch of money and says "okay do whatever you feel like with all this cash I guess. No pressure."
I guess they chose to rush out Dragon Age II in less than a year because, y'know, it's more artistic that way.
They decided to rush Mass Effect 3 out all by themselves, with NO pressure from EA whatsoever.
They made a hashed-in multi-player to one of the best single-player games ever, made micro-transactions and figured the best way to finally reveal the face of Tali (my FAVOURITE character) by lifting a stock photo for free off the internet and doing a 5 minute photoshop job on it. ALL. BY. THEMSELVES.
Because seriously, what kind of publisher just hands a group of people a bunch of money and says "okay do whatever you feel like with all this cash I guess. No pressure."
I guess they chose to rush out Dragon Age II in less than a year because, y'know, it's more artistic that way.
They decided to rush Mass Effect 3 out all by themselves, with NO pressure from EA whatsoever.
They made a hashed-in multi-player to one of the best single-player games ever, made micro-transactions and figured the best way to finally reveal the face of Tali (my FAVOURITE character) by lifting a stock photo for free off the internet and doing a 5 minute photoshop job on it. ALL. BY. THEMSELVES.
That sums up what I wanted to say. These things are not someone who is passionate about games and game stories would ever allow anywhere near their piece of art, and these are the exact things that have been destroying nearly every EA product as of late. I had boycotted ME3 because of that day one DLC nonsense, and I loved the franchise.Dexter111 said:
I'm believe him when he says they had "creative control", in that they could write the stories in the way they want, but all this ancillary BS is clearly an EA directive. How can it not be when it appears in nearly every last game under their wings?
God, is it possible for once to take a man's word for the truth, and not spin it into some big, corporate conspiracy? The world just isn't that exciting guys. Not everything is a big, dirty scheme out to screw gamers out of their rightly deserved otherworldly, totally awesome games. If EA told you 2+2=4, some of you guys would have a hard time believing it.
Im Black Isle studios would be happy to hear that (bioware did not make planescape)HalloHerrNoob said:
Dear EA,
This is not hard. Here's what you do. Make money. Without being a Dick about it.
Do you know how to do that?
*sigh* Okay, fine, I'll explain how this works. Look around you at literally ANY video game company that did not just win Worst Company Ever for the last 2 years in a row. No, Activision doesn't count, pick someone else.
Okay, got your competitor in mind? Good! See how they're making money, even though they're less of a dick about it than you? DO THAT. Just copy what that other company is doing, and you should be fine!
If that means you make slightly less money than you otherwise would have, so be it. I mean, you guys are loaded, right? I assume that since you're all about the profit no matter the collateral damage to your customers, your reputation, the franchises under your control and your industry as a whole, you must have been making money hand over fist all this time, right...?
Whaddya MEAN you're losing money? You're telling me you're selling 3 million copies of a game and somehow managing to LOSE money in the process? Was that CEO you fired pocketing it all? Where the fuck did the money go? You can't expect me to believe you've been spending it all on developers?
How the heck do all those other companies manage to turn a profit, then? What's Valve doing right that you're doing wrong, EA? It's almost as if being NICE to your customers and NOT screwing them over somehow makes the business MORE profitable, not less.
But that's crazy talk, right? Surely this strategy of putting the bottom line first, while loudly announcing that that's what you're doing has made EA what it is today. Because only your investors matter, right? Not customers, developers, the media, your peers, the industry, or the artform. As long as you look good in Business Week, who cares what people THINK and SAY about you? Investors don't read blogs or internet polls.
Right, EA?
I know everything I just said seems really alien and confusing to you, but to everyone who's not EA, this stuff is pretty much common sense. I don't think you'll ever get it. I think you're too set in your ways to ever change them. I think you're gonna go right off the cliff and drag as many AAA developers and licenses down with you as you can afford to pad your goddamned portfolio with. The good news is the industry can survive without you. The bad news is that so much of it is under your control in the first place.
Now quick, bring in some new talking heads and flood the internet with talking points. That should buy you maybe another six months to get your golden parachutes in order.
This is not hard. Here's what you do. Make money. Without being a Dick about it.
Do you know how to do that?
*sigh* Okay, fine, I'll explain how this works. Look around you at literally ANY video game company that did not just win Worst Company Ever for the last 2 years in a row. No, Activision doesn't count, pick someone else.
Okay, got your competitor in mind? Good! See how they're making money, even though they're less of a dick about it than you? DO THAT. Just copy what that other company is doing, and you should be fine!
If that means you make slightly less money than you otherwise would have, so be it. I mean, you guys are loaded, right? I assume that since you're all about the profit no matter the collateral damage to your customers, your reputation, the franchises under your control and your industry as a whole, you must have been making money hand over fist all this time, right...?
Whaddya MEAN you're losing money? You're telling me you're selling 3 million copies of a game and somehow managing to LOSE money in the process? Was that CEO you fired pocketing it all? Where the fuck did the money go? You can't expect me to believe you've been spending it all on developers?
How the heck do all those other companies manage to turn a profit, then? What's Valve doing right that you're doing wrong, EA? It's almost as if being NICE to your customers and NOT screwing them over somehow makes the business MORE profitable, not less.
But that's crazy talk, right? Surely this strategy of putting the bottom line first, while loudly announcing that that's what you're doing has made EA what it is today. Because only your investors matter, right? Not customers, developers, the media, your peers, the industry, or the artform. As long as you look good in Business Week, who cares what people THINK and SAY about you? Investors don't read blogs or internet polls.
Right, EA?
I know everything I just said seems really alien and confusing to you, but to everyone who's not EA, this stuff is pretty much common sense. I don't think you'll ever get it. I think you're too set in your ways to ever change them. I think you're gonna go right off the cliff and drag as many AAA developers and licenses down with you as you can afford to pad your goddamned portfolio with. The good news is the industry can survive without you. The bad news is that so much of it is under your control in the first place.
Now quick, bring in some new talking heads and flood the internet with talking points. That should buy you maybe another six months to get your golden parachutes in order.
well im already not buying from EA because of shitty business practices but now all this statement does is confirm my lack of faith in bioware... well done
lol nice move by EA, like "Its not our fault we were worst company in America, its his fault"...
This is bullshit if you ask me.
Look at Dragon Age 2. How long was that game in development, like under 12 months? Compared to 5 years to Origins. How on earth they expect this game wasn't going to flop if EA gave them such a fast deadline.
I think this is the reason why they decided to make DA2 more "action`y" instead of sticking to their Origins.(yea sorry about the pun there) along with the copy paste dungeons, because they didn't have enough time.
I'm a bit skeptic regarding Dragon Age 3, but so far it looks like a good game and premise. Can't wait to go to Orlais.
Look at Dragon Age 2. How long was that game in development, like under 12 months? Compared to 5 years to Origins. How on earth they expect this game wasn't going to flop if EA gave them such a fast deadline.
I think this is the reason why they decided to make DA2 more "action`y" instead of sticking to their Origins.(yea sorry about the pun there) along with the copy paste dungeons, because they didn't have enough time.
I'm a bit skeptic regarding Dragon Age 3, but so far it looks like a good game and premise. Can't wait to go to Orlais.
Why do people doubt this? Do you honestly think EA said "LETS MAKE THE ENDING OF MASS EFFECT 3 BAD FOR NOOOOO REASON!!!"
EA probably had 3 conditions for ME3
1: The deadline
2: multiplayer
3: that the multiplayer supported microtransactions
Are they inadvertently responsible for the ending? Maybe. But it's because they cut into development time with multiplayer and then forced a "one year after the last game" deadline. I highly doubt they had their fingers in anything creative.
EA probably had 3 conditions for ME3
1: The deadline
2: multiplayer
3: that the multiplayer supported microtransactions
Are they inadvertently responsible for the ending? Maybe. But it's because they cut into development time with multiplayer and then forced a "one year after the last game" deadline. I highly doubt they had their fingers in anything creative.
A tad dramatic in choice of words I'll admit.NinjaDeathSlap said:
Just because he thinks they were good ideas doesn't make them good. But its possible. I don't live in that guys mind. Doesn't make it any less bullshitty though.NinjaDeathSlap said:
Mind = Blown.NinjaDeathSlap said:
Don't lie on the internet. God will strike you down.NinjaDeathSlap said:
As you can see from my responses, You can never have too much sarcasmNinjaDeathSlap said:
And I'm not an enormous EA hating conspiracy theorist either TBO. It just struck me as a bit random. Maybe he believes it; sure, Wont stop me from thinking its bullshitNinjaDeathSlap said:
And I am sure that he (and EA) will be devastated that I, a Random Guy On The Internet, think this way.
Seeing as how he doesn't work for them, I bet he got nothing...or if these forums are to be believed he had to pay them...Amaror said:
Also as for it's timing it does make sense, he sees a company he use to work for get an award for something they probably don't deserve and he felt the need to speak up.
Honestly this kind of fucks me off that no matter who says what it's always EA's fault in some peoples eyes. Can people not just wake up and realise that a bad game is not the end of the fucking world and that just cause they're a big company does not make them the devil.
Probably the catch is that DLC, microtransactions and such are not considered to fall under the umbrella of "creative control" in EA's viewpoint.
Nope. They own Bioware, the set them a deadline and say work. That is a legitimate and fair way of doing business. As for the timeline issue that only happened for Dragon Age 2, and to be honest it's a perfectly adequate functioning game. Could be better, but I find it still can be entertaining and takes anywhere from 10 - 20 hours to finish.Revelo said:
I'm sorry but, what?
You don't have complete creative control over a lot of it. You either have complete creative control or you don't, that's kinda what complete means.
"EA gave us complete creative crontrol"
You do realize that's not a point in your favor, right? It just means that the end of Mass Effect 3 is even more your fault.
You do realize that's not a point in your favor, right? It just means that the end of Mass Effect 3 is even more your fault.
Define, "Complete Control" for me, please.
I take that to mean.. EA is the Master and their studios are the slaves. The slaves are given the illusion of "complete control" by being given a safe word.. which allows them to "stop it at any time".. right? Right.
I take that to mean.. EA is the Master and their studios are the slaves. The slaves are given the illusion of "complete control" by being given a safe word.. which allows them to "stop it at any time".. right? Right.