EA kept pushing them to MMOs despite them being a single player RPG company. I definitely think they dropped the ball too, but had they been put on DA4 right after inquisition and kept it going to completion I don’t think they’d’ve flopped like that
Comment on EA: Ruin Everything
Goodeye8@piefed.social 1 week agoYeah, because EA gave Bioware a chance to bounce back, in fact multiple chances. You could say EA killed the Bioware of old which the talent leaving the studio, but the new Bioware could’ve bounced back. They had everything they needed to succeed. A credible studio name that people trusted and a bunch of beloved IPs that people would give a chance. They even had EA giving them more than one shot to not fail (which is more than most EA studios get) and also plenty of time to get it right. All Bioware had to do was put out a good game and they simply couldn’t.
So let me ask in reverse. Let’s say Bioware was indepedent. What would Bioware have to fuck up for you to say its their fault for going under? Because to me they ticked all those boxes already. Had it been any other studio they’d already be dead and forgotten.
captainlezbian@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Goodeye8@piefed.social 1 week ago
I think you might be using the wrong word here. EA never pushed Bioware to make MMOs. Bioware made one MMO, SWTOR, and that was a financial success. As far as I know no other Bioware game had been an MMO after EA bought them. Where Bioware struggled was with making live-service multiplayer games and there’s some argument that the unrealistic revenue expectations from EA forced Bioware to go down that route but in the end it was Bioware who suggested, back in 2012, that Anthem would be a live-service style game. How Veilguard ended up going multiplayer I’m not familiar with, but even there Bioware could go back to the single player experience, which still flopped.
chiliedogg@lemmy.world 1 week ago
EA forced them to make a live service game that failed. Then they tried to make them make a live service Dragon Age game. They decided to change Veilguard back to single-player, but late enough in the development cycle that it impacted the final product.
Andromeda was a technical mess at launch, but the game itself was fine. It was the weakest in the series, but they tried new stuff with the spinoff and I appreciated the attempt.
The only game they made before that I truly disliked was Dragon Age II.
JustARaccoon@lemmy.world 1 week ago
upvoted only to retract it for the da2 comment lol. Dragon Age 2 is a great game swamped by tight deadlines, but what’s there is fun and it still has the feel of origin where the world feels dangerous. it is so much better than its successors, and honestly if it had the right budget I’d even say it could’ve been as good as origins.
chiliedogg@lemmy.world 1 week ago
The budget and timeline absolutely killed it. Reusing like 4 maps for everything in the whole game got old super fast. And I also didn’t care for the change from the tactical combat of the first game at all.
JustARaccoon@lemmy.world 1 week ago
you still have tactical mode tho and it works the same as in origins, I think the AI ruleset stuff you could set before is missing in 2 iirc, but when I played them back to back it didn’t feel like I needed to relearn how stuff works.
I do think it helps playing da2 with all the included dlcs, it helps add variety to areas you visit.
Goodeye8@piefed.social 1 week ago
EA didn’t force them, Bioware pitched Anthem as a live-service style game from the get-go.
chiliedogg@lemmy.world 1 week ago
EA installed managers of the company who had backgrounds in Major League Gaming and EA’s mobile gaming division. THEN they pitched a live service game. Most of the remaining members of the old guard left within months of Anthem’s announcement.
Goodeye8@piefed.social 1 week ago
There’s no clear date on when the Anthem pitch happened but it happened before EA appointed Bromberg as the CEO. Which was in 2012. Anthem didn’t get officially announced until 2017. Unless you meant the nameless teaser they put out in 2014.
If you want to continue arguing this you going to have to personally name who that old guard was because I very much doubt they left within months in 2014.
cmhe@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Persued ‘live-service’ games, using game engines that don’t fit, constantly shifting direction of games, focusing on a generic streamlined cinematic experience then telling a good story with impactful choices, …
Goodeye8@piefed.social 1 week ago
I do hope that was a deliberate jab at Bungie. Because that’s exactly what Bungie did when they were independent and the reason they got bought out by Sony was because they were spiraling into their demise. Even now I think if Bungie goes under the blame lies with Bungie and not Sony. With that in mind I think it would be illogical to see two different studios go down the same path and then blame one studio but excuse the other studio.
cmhe@lemmy.world 1 week ago
I don’t get your point…
My point is that if Bioware did that when independent, they where to blame. But they weren’t independent when they did that.
Your point is that Bungie did that, when independent… So? Are people not blaming Bungie for doing live-services? If they don’t then they should! And if they do, then I don’t see the inconsistency.
From my POV, no games of Bungie had any interest. I guess Halo found some appeal to some, but this whole Destiny stuff… Maybe it was successful because of the novelty at that time. But I had no interest it that…
Goodeye8@piefed.social 1 week ago
Okay, so without being what would Bioware have to do for you to blame Bioware for being shut down?