Silentpony said:
I see business as business.
Which probably explains why you're only seeing part of the picture.
Bioware is in the business of making money. Business is that simple. [1]Did you make enough money to turn a profit? [2]Did you hit your sales goal? [3]Was your product well received by the consumer? [4]Can we justify a sequel game, given our first game's reception? [5]Did the flaws in our product affect sales? [6]Why were the flaws not fixed? [7]Who was in charge of those areas that were flawed? [8]Why did they give us a flawed product? [9]Why are they still working for us?
You're really not doing your position any good.
Let's go through 'em.
1: clearly EA did.
2: we'd need to speak to EA for that, as I stated before - and their position wouldn't necessarily be of any worth for the reasons I previously stated (publishers: not a reliably bright lot).
3: how do we judge that in any meaningful way? 'Fan' feedback? Aggregate sites? Random YT channels? Ranting forumites either with axes to grind or loyalties to defend? Polls through official channels? Snippets of all the above?
4: that's up to EA, and I find it very hard to believe another ME won't go into production soon enough (relatively speaking).
5: define "flaws", for starters, given those are mostly subjective in a creative artform. Many things affected sales. Delicate snowflakes ironically bridling at progressiveness, for one. Bugs for another - ME:A only finished installing on my drive a few minutes ago because I wasn't going to touch such a clearly - demonstrably - technically defective product (as less than impressive as ME:A's face tech is, I do not count that among the technical errors).
6: most guesses point to 'EA done EA again', given they should've been keenly aware of the state of the product they were backing. I'm not sure anyone knows the specifics yet, but it's reasonable to suspect BioWare and EA were effectively negligent in a variety of ways.
7's academic and down to BioWare's discretion and possible internal reviews.
8: a good question for the technical issues, and one I'd like to know the answer to. If they most care about early doors sales, then they lost my contribution because of its unfit state for release (though I am still adding to their overall sales success).
9: ditto as for 7.
The post of yours I challenged tried to paint ME:A's and a possible follow-up's fate as simple. The above questions and their possible answers do nothing but complicate matters.
The fact someone takes pride in their work doesn't matter if they go out of business because no one else took pride in their work.
...I'm sorry, did EA or BioWare go bust whilst I wasn't looking? Was ME:A a disaster commercially? That's a clear 'no' to both.
Referencing creative pride [in a creative medium] was relevant to illustrate that there are many perspectives on, and the means to measure, the quality of work that's been done by the various parties involved, and that beyond the metrics of units shifted, nothing is simple, and barely anything can ever be boiled down to 'derp, fail/succeed'.
If you've tried to claim ME:A was a black and white true/false failure, then so far you've not actually done a single thing to try to back it up, and given you can't reasonably cite commercial - or critical - failure, I'm not sure how you'd go about it.
Tony2077 said:
well this sucks i like the game and there is still a lot we weren't told about so it would have been neat to see where those story paths led. oh just because of who i am haters be damned
It's worth keeping in mind just how small a group of haterz there probably is, relative to the amount of people just playing the game normally. ME:A's technical faults were just an excuse for certain groups to give BioWare another kicking.
...though, granted, it was like a defender in football going in studs up in the box, therefore giving the ref a decision to make - clearly BioWare/EA made mistakes.