Rumor: PC Features Cut From Dragon Age 2
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
BOO! BOO! BOO, I SAY!
Wow, they really are making this Dragon Effect, aren't they?
BioWare, you're my favorite dev team. I loved ME2 and I loved DA:O. But I loved them for different reasons, and I loved them for their differences and the ways that they excelled in different areas.
I do not want a mutant hybrid incest baby from them. I don't care if it's the most awesome mutant hybrid incest baby ever created, I want my awesome RPGs non-inbred, thank you.
I'm going to flag up the usual suspects, Valve and Blizzard, as examples as why there's plenty of money to be made in PC games. And anyway, your arguement doesn't make sense, since Nintendo complained about piracy when their handheld game sales took a beating. You don't hear Valve complain about piracy. Final fact: 99% of DRMs these days are really about restricting resale.Shycte said:
This works perfectly for me. *shrug* I played the, from what I've been repeatedly told, terribly broken awful and basically unplayable 360 version of DA:O and loved it. While I'm not totally sold on some of the other aspects of DA2 that they've talked about so far, I have no issue at all with the way I'm going to be playing the game getting a little more support.
Well if you don't like this decision, Let's Boycott the company by Not buying the game! if few people buy it, they will surely be forced or "understand" to reconsider.
Gamers, in general, couldn't boycott their way out of a wet paper bag.[footnote]Excuse the mixing of the metaphors[/footnote] Even assuming there is a boycott and most people actually go though with it, it would only hurt the sales of the PC version, thus ensuring that a theoretical Dragon Age 3 wouldn't get a PC release, as EA/Bioware will just blame piracy rather than their own failings.Orcus_35 said:
Basically, yeah.lostzombies.com said:
If the consumers didn't support Bioware, why ***** about Bioware not supporting them back? I don't like siding with companies over people, but what other logical choice do they have? It's like exchanging a dollar for a penny, who in their right mind does that?
*sigh*
[HEADING=1]THE PC AND CONSOLES ARE TWO VERY DIFFERENT PLATFORMS WITH TWO VERY DIFFERENT STRENGTHS, WEAKNESSES, AND AUDIENCES! SO STOP SCREWING OVER THE PC USERS![/HEADING]
With mods we can fix any problems you miss. We can make things better, we can improve. Which in turn shows you some problems you may have missed, and how to stop that from happening in the future. Plus mods give endless entertainment.
This just seriously pisses me off.
[HEADING=1]THE PC AND CONSOLES ARE TWO VERY DIFFERENT PLATFORMS WITH TWO VERY DIFFERENT STRENGTHS, WEAKNESSES, AND AUDIENCES! SO STOP SCREWING OVER THE PC USERS![/HEADING]
With mods we can fix any problems you miss. We can make things better, we can improve. Which in turn shows you some problems you may have missed, and how to stop that from happening in the future. Plus mods give endless entertainment.
This just seriously pisses me off.
Actually your logic is a bit muddy here. First off, PC data pirating is often painted by as the roots for all that's evil in the gaming industry, while it is a factor it is not as big a factor as it is painted to be. It's the big picture that needs to seen here,and the big picture here is control.Shycte said:
First a very small and generalised history lession. Console gaming had more or less was there first as far as the mainstream public's attention was concern. The console market then took a dive under the radar during the mid-90s. In part, this was due to PC technology becoming more accessable both on a finanical level and functional level, with DOS (even though many versions were light and free) it scared off people and while Windows resolved those fears (ironically creating new ones later). Anyways, hand-in-hand with this growth, gaming development budgets soared by thousands of factors.
However, more investment dollars also means without exception, more corporate control/over-sight/direction. Example, Sierra Entertainment circa 1980s/mid-90s and an icon of PC gaming development, was literally a husband and wife team that produced products of gaming love. Development direction was far more subjective; however, after 1996 and a long tumble down the rabbit hole, it would eventually be incorporated into Activision.
Large publishing corporations dearly love consoles because it represents control, both corporate proprietary technology and IP control. Since these publishing companies are unapologetically for-profite entities, their horde of managers will try to contribute to the bottom line by looking under every rock for every factor that will take away from the bottom line. Data pirating gets lumped on the top of these factors because it's easier to demonise as opposed to openly declaring war on the second-hand gaming stores and game modders, which are in essence doing the same thing, which is taking away from the publisher's bottom line.
Developers also don't fight development for gaming on consoles platforms, because all development is done on a 'real computer' and then gets compiled for what-ever plateform. Development for the PC plateform just means more work, because it has more variables the developers have to account for, while consoles more or less means one set of guidelines to program towards. Consoles also sometimes means a shorter development time, therein avoid Duke'Nukem Forever issues, and a bonus for the publisher's resource investment.
This all leads to an industry induced downward spiral on PC gaming spotlight time. If you don't make product X or market it, then it naturally won't sell, therein product X will have a poor showing on reports. This is a data bias that will self-prepetuate. I've seen video gaming retailers, like EB Games go from a PC friendly retailer to it's Gamestop version which actively discourages customers from buying a game's PC version. With this trend in play, I've seen PC games' shelf space reduced from walls to a single shelf tucked away in the corner.
The thing is, the PC gaming market hasn't really change, more so it's remained steady because the PC exist in various forms in almost every house hold within North America. Even if you actively avoid having a PC at home, if you have children going to a reasonably decent school, then they have access to a PC or Mac, that alone means another generation with familarity to the technology and exposure to a desire to play games.
The PC gaming market potential is still there, it's just that publishers would rather have more control over their IPs and its access.
So we PC'ers lose tactical because some lame ass consoles cant keep up with our uber power? Lame.
From PC roots, to where the MONEY is. E.g from the less profitable platform, to the profitable one. And they really wouldn't sell that many more, because not a significant portion of people actually care about the removed features, fewer still won't buy the game because of it.Hearthing said:
The reason so many people pirate on PC is because it's easy. Not because they get "screwed over" They are making PC games more console-esque, yet PC games have much higher piracy rate. It isn't the game, it's the ease of access. DRM is a whole different kettle of fish. Also, 3 weeks on utorrent? If you still use dial up, maybe. I could probably nab MW2 or Mass Effect 2 right now, and have it complete by the time I woke up.
It isn't as highly lucrative as you might think. A: Games cost a LOT to develop, B: Only a minority of games make a good amount of money.
Last year game devs lost money. People like EA had to lay of more staff because they couldn't afford to keep them on.
Their main market these days is consoles, not PC. Thus, developing PC specific tools costs them EXTRA money, that LESS people care about. This is good business sense.lacktheknack said:
I imagine the conversation at Bioware going something like this:
"Apparently we're going to lose 50,000 sale in DA 2 because of the PC market?"
"50,000? Does such a small number even exist?"
Yeah, but the same could be said for anything. Saying X wasn't an industry till it got big is a redundant statement. Money breeds money. Not many people want to make games for free. Especially not something as elaborate as DA 2, which takes hundreds of thousands of man hours to complete.Orcus_35 said:
Just because they are a company that makes products designed to entertain you, doesn't mean you can just expect them to deliver what you want.
LOTR rip-off? What did they rip off? I saw nothing that was anything like LOTR, maybe the darkspawn looked like orcs but so does my mother in the morning.s69-5 said:
Anyway the whole thing about cutting out things is crap, if they made so much money they should be adding, not takeing away. It already was a success so if your going to make another one make it a true sequel and keep it the way it was and add more. If you want to make something differnt do it but do not ruin a perfectly good game so you can make the masses happy. I doubt the game designers are happy that you are taking this in a whole differnt direction and make it for the consoles, and adding the pc port as an after thought.
