According to Jason Schreier, making Anthem was Bioware idea; EA actually gives the studios autonomy and more

Oct 27, 2017
5,803
Meh, there's a difference between Sony and EA. Sony does not rely on selling games to recoup costs and make money directly, EA relies on games braking and exceeding their costs to fund the next investments. For Sony to write a "blank check" for single-player experiences works cause they lead to hardware and software sales, Sony's bread and butter. For EA to approve a game that brakes even? Not good enough when that's your only revenue. I think what Jason means, EA wants money, how you achieve that is your decision, just bring us the figures and predictions. Of course Henning isn't used to that, story and themes don't translate to sales and long revenue tails.

If anything, after the string of failures across the board of Bioware, DICE, EA may decide to meddle more deeply into the studio leadership's and management.

I mean to be frank, Anthem clearly, clearly went wrong in development, and Project Dylan and the results signal toward the same grand vision that Andromeda went through and failed to deliver. (Someone else suggested this on era)

Like, lets not blame all EA or all Bioware, end of the day, the two entities are part of Electronic Arts, it really does not matter who fucked up. Saying EA fucked up and released too early, EA failed to manage the project, EA failed etc, well it still boils to Bioware failing, and as the owner of Bioware, EA fucked up.
Sony’s games have been increasingly profitable and they close studios that aren’t. Even at their worst, they operated like a movie studio with mega hits financing other ventures. These days though, their portfolio is turning into Disney esque at a glance
 

SeanBoocock

Lead Software Engineer at QC Games
Verified
Oct 27, 2017
94
Austin, Texas
It’s the old broom and broom handle paradox, does anyone believe for a second that the old school executives of BioWare wanted to make this game before they’d left?
Anthem was started under the tenure of the doctors, by and for leads at Bioware to stretch their creative legs doing something other than Mass Effect. All games evolve over their development but Anthem is broadly what Bioware set out to make.
 
Oct 28, 2017
9,898
the ideas for the game may have been Bioware's and the studio may have some autonomy. but according to schreier's tweets that autonomy is severely constrained by internal targets and incentives imposed on the studio from the publisher, and Anthem's business model was clearly informed by those constraints. missing this important context makes for a very misleading thread title
No the constraints are there because if theyre asking for X amount of millions of dollars, investors told them they need to hit X amount of projected revenue. They knew what they signed up for when taking this project. Blaming EA for wanting a return for hundreds of millions of dollars is asinine especially when the brunt of the problems with the game would have nothing to do with the publisher interfering. This is how any basic investment works, you ask for X amount of money, they tell you what they need to see before giving you X amount of money-the onus for how they come up with that is on them in addition to accepting the terms in the first place. They could have just worked on another project if they didn't feel comfortable hitting the numbers EA wanted them to. There is nothing misleading here, its just people not understanding how this process plays out and wanting to blame the EA boogieman.

Im not dilusional, you’re just ignorant. The consequences of not having a long revenue tail game is clear. The way you design games with long revenue tails is clear or are you ignorant enough to not see how game design homogenizes around GAAS? You’ve got maybe.... four discreet templates.

Maybe you’ve never made a game or are new to games?
OR bioware could have created a game that didn't require such a significant amount of funding so as to not in turn expect a sizeable amount of long term revenue. But this is the game they wanted to make. THis was their dream project. Not EAs. Theres no way this game wasn't designed from the ground up to be a gaas because all looter games are inherently gaas games at this point. They knew what they were doing when they pitched the idea. Stop blaming EA for their poor development. Every single account, including the ones from bioware, have talked about this being THEIR project and journalists are now backing that they had a lot of autonomy while working on this. Vs what youre arguing which is nothing but conjecture that you can't back up at all.

Weird hypothetical backed up by nothing. Were you born yesterday? EA has quite a reputation.
The quote is so vague you could interpret it in almost any way. Anthem was Bioware's idea. You think? They made the game. Literally thousands of ideas involved.. They know who their employer is, they know what's expected of them. Do you think it's a coincidence EA, Ubisoft, Activision, all these massive corporate publishers are the ones leading the way with the live service monetization model? Bioware didn't come up with the idea. Bioware has ideas, they serve their master.
No hypothetical needed, thats verbatim whats going on in this thread.

EA does have a reputation. Some of it earned. Some of it not. This is clearly a case of the latter. EVery account is conceding that EA did not force this idea on them, nor were they overly involved with it. But here we have people pulling tales from their ass to try and say why Bioware is wrong, the press is wrong, Jason is wrong, because EA put in a number of shitty microtransaction models in their previous games-which oddly enough here isn't even an issue so I'm lost as to what the reputation is if the primary argument against them doesn't even apply to the situation at hand. Serve their master? Jesus christ with the gamers rise up language.
 
Last edited:
Oct 27, 2017
5,803
Anthem was started under the tenure of the doctors, by and for leads at Bioware to stretch their creative legs doing something other than Mass Effect. All games evolve over their development but Anthem is broadly what Bioware set out to make.
In so far as ME1 matches that original (insane) design doc you could be right, but aside from that, it would be a fools errand tohabe anything but serious doubt. THis of course, says nothing as to if Anthem is actually 'The game bioware has wanted to make all along' as its own dev doc is tailor made to modern EAs expectations.
 
Last edited:
Oct 27, 2017
5,803
User banned (5 days): Antagonizing and insulting another member over a series of posts.
No the constraints are there because if theyre asking for X amount of millions of dollars, investors told them they need to hit X amount of projected revenue. They knew what they signed up for when taking this project. Blaming EA for wanting a return for hundreds of millions of dollars is asinine especially when the brunt of the problems with the game would have nothing to do with the publisher interfering. This is how any basic investment works, you ask for X amount of money, they tell you what they need to see before giving you X amount of money-the onus for how they come up with that is on them in addition to accepting the terms in the first place. They could have just worked on another project if they didn't feel comfortable hitting the numbers EA wanted them to. There is nothing misleading here, its just people not understanding how this process plays out and wanting to blame the EA boogieman.


OR bioware could have created a game that didn't require such a significant amount of funding so as to not in turn expect a sizeable amount of long term revenue. But this is the game they wanted to make. THis was their dream project. Not EAs. Theres no way this game wasn't designed from the ground up to be a gaas because all looter games are inherently gaas games at this point. They knew what they were doing when they pitched the idea. Stop blaming EA for their poor development. Every single account, including the ones from bioware, have talked about this being THEIR project and journalists are now backing that they had a lot of autonomy while working on this. Vs what youre arguing which is nothing but conjecture that you can't back up at all.
Maggotmouth, you responded exactly as I thought you would. So see my other response further up the page.

And don’t play dumb with letting EA off the hook for knowing the exact kind of impact only wanting and approving long tail GAAS games has, they’re far from dumb.

Also haha at ‘conjecture you can’t back up given... sourced statements from former devs in lead positions. XD either actually respond to the points people are making or don’t bother, no one wants to read your one sided rants.
 
Oct 28, 2017
9,898
You responded exactly as I thought you would. So see my other response.
I have nothing else to say to people living in their made up fantasy world backed up by nothing but their own uninformed accounts. I'll trust the words of the devs, the publisher, and the press (especially Jason) over internet fairy tales

So they weren't pressured into making Anthem except for the fact that they were. OK.
I can't get over how awful the understanding is of how investments work. "They were forced"....No. They asked for an incredible amount of money for a huge game they wanted to work on, EA said sure, but these are the targets were going to need to see for an investment of this size. But according to ERA, EA should be handing out hundreds of millions of dollars out of the goodness of their hearts and not expect to see significant returns on such a huge investment. So of course were running with the narrative that they were pressured into this when by literally every single account from a non internet nobody, thats not what happened at all.

Maggotmouth, you responded exactly as I thought you would. So see my other response further up the page.

And don’t play dumb with letting EA off the hook for knowing the exact kind of impact only wanting and approving long tail GAAS games has, they’re far from dumb.

Also haha at ‘conjecture you can’t back up given... sourced statements from former devs in lead positions. XD either actually respond to the points people are making or don’t bother, no one wants to read your one sided rants.
Editing your post to still say nothing. Ok.
 
Oct 28, 2017
776
Okay, sure.

However, Anthem getting made is heavily influenced by EA's business expectations and practices. An online co-op loot shooter is actually a much easier pitch with access to loads of more funding instead of Bioware's Single Player offerings of the past.

So yeah, they weren't forced to make it, but that doesn't mean that they weren't railroaded into it either.
 
Oct 27, 2017
2,492
I have nothing else to say to people living in their made up fantasy world backed up by nothing but their own uninformed accounts. I'll trust the words of the devs, the publisher, and the press (especially Jason) over internet fairy tales


I can't get over how awful the understanding is of how investments work. "They were forced"....No. They asked for an incredible amount of money for a huge game they wanted to work on, EA said sure, but these are the targets were going to need to see for an investment of this size. But according to ERA, EA should be handing out hundreds of millions of dollars out of the goodness of their hearts and not expect to see significant returns on such a huge investment. So of course were running with the narrative that they were pressured into this when by literally every single account from a non internet nobody, thats not what happened at all.


Editing your post to still say nothing. Ok.
This board has no idea how games are funded
 
Nov 2, 2017
84
I have a feeling that Jason's been fed lies. To have been a fly on the wall for the green-light process for Anthem would have been very interesting indeed.
 
Dec 1, 2017
632
why is it so out of the realm of possibility, that someone would want to make an openworld looter shooter mech/exo-suit game. Its a great idea. Whether u like anthem or not. It went for something thats not currently available. I can't think of another game i can sit down and play rn, that feels like it. Maybe warframe, but in botw's world...and im superman from the shadow of apokolips game?
 
Oct 27, 2017
5,803
Editing your post to still say nothing. Ok.
You still don't know what you're talking about, and to see you continue to use this 'fantasy land' line when you're proud of looking no further or thinking no deeper than 'just looking at published statements' is a little... eehhhhhhhhh, I might feel bad for you. We have plenty of sources that contradict you and you display a very basic understanding at best of how corporate structure works and soft power is used. Like, very basic. I highly doubt you've worked in industries like game dev or shipped products before. The fact that you can't bridge the gap to understanding that people blame EA for their singular approach, and the ramifications that has on game dev and design, even this late into the thread, is baffling.

Likewise that you can't understand that 99% of the people commenting in this thread aren't placing sole blame with EA, because it WAS Biowares project after all, EA just funneled the design elements with their key deliverables, and fronted the money. 'Bioware knew what they were getting into' no shit my dude, they are owned by EA and had to meet EAs expectations of creating a game that could generate massive revenue over years.

So which one is it? Shareholder or useful meat that has yet to spoil? :P

https://www.resetera.com/threads/ac...tudios-autonomy-and-more.105408/post-18862353
 
Last edited:
Dec 4, 2018
965
Okay, sure.

However, Anthem getting made is heavily influenced by EA's business expectations and practices. An online co-op loot shooter is actually a much easier pitch with access to loads of more funding instead of Bioware's Single Player offerings of the past.

So yeah, they weren't forced to make it, but that doesn't mean that they weren't railroaded into it either.
The fact that the result is a bad online co-op, bad loot, bad shooter with a bad single player offering is absurd when they had 6 years to do this and apparently a big budget for a AAA+ game.

Someone mentioned this couldn't possibly be a Destiny clone because the design document is so old. Honestly, I wish they had cloned Destiny - even the lore in Destiny gets more interesting in the last DLCs than the keyword salad of Anthem.
 
Oct 27, 2017
5,803
The fact that the result is a bad online co-op, bad loot, bad shooter with a bad single player offering is absurd when they had 6 years to do this and apparently a big budget for a AAA+ game.

Someone mentioned this couldn't possibly be a Destiny clone because the design document is so old. Honestly, I wish they had cloned Destiny - even the lore in Destiny gets more interesting in the last DLCs than the keyword salad of Anthem.
Anthem being a mess IS on Bioware to be sure (though without a doubt I bet that Frostbite plays a big part as well). Given how thread bare it is, we know that there must be piles of scrapped content, systems, and prototypes, there's no doubt that Bioware was trying many different things and failing throughout those 6 years, and there was plenty of time for Destiny to have influenced what was ultimately released.
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,381
Indonesia
from what I read, seems like the fault rely mostly at Bioware. whether Bioware intent to make Anthem as GAAS from the start, or they add GAAS as concession because they need that high amount of money for their vision doesn't matter. something's wrong from the management of Anthem. the reviews I've read so far give me impression that Bioware simply didn't have the experience to make a GAAS shared world shooter genre. in that case, it should be up to Bioware leadership to add more experienced developer to their team, an example that come to mind is Guerrilla Games adding a bunch of people who are more experienced with open world RPG games.

although maybe they did do that but it still didn't work. things happened, I know making games are not easy and there are a lot of things that can go wrong in development.
 
Jan 11, 2018
5
Anthem being a mess IS on Bioware to be sure (though without a doubt I bet that Frostbite plays a big part as well). Given how thread bare it is, we know that there must be piles of scrapped content, systems, and prototypes, there's no doubt that Bioware was trying many different things and failing throughout those 6 years, and there was plenty of time for Destiny to have influenced what was ultimately released.
It's obvious. You can watch the e3 2018 demo and see seamless co op for example that never make it in the final product.
 
Oct 28, 2017
9,898
You still don't know what you're talking about, and to see you continue to use this 'fantasy land' line when you're proud of looking no further or thinking no deeper than 'just looking at published statements' is a little... eehhhhhhhhh, I might feel bad for you. We have plenty of sources that contradict you and you display a very basic understanding at best of how corporate structure works and soft power is used. Like, very basic. I highly doubt you've worked in industries like game dev or shipped products before. The fact that you can't bridge the gap to understanding that people blame EA for their singular approach, and the ramifications that has on game dev and design, even this late into the thread, is baffling.

Likewise that you can't understand that 99% of the people commenting in this thread aren't placing sole blame with EA, because it WAS Biowares project after all, EA just funneled the design elements with their key deliverables, and fronted the money. 'Bioware knew what they were getting into' no shit my dude, they are owned by EA and had to meet EAs expectations of creating a game that could generate massive revenue over years.

So which one is it? Shareholder or useful meat that has yet to spoil?

https://www.resetera.com/threads/ac...tudios-autonomy-and-more.105408/post-18862353
You keep talking about evidence to the contrary and have yet to provide a single example of one. No, other projects being impeded in some form by EA does not automatically equate to every project being impeded upon (IE apex legends also were very clear they were given immense freedom to make the game they wanted).

I never said people were solely blaming EA so maybe try reading again. I was only ever commenting on people attempting to place the majority or a large portion of blame on them and suggesting they were forcing bioware into making this game.

That post you linked me to added nothing for context or evidence on your end and only served to evidence you continue to name call me which doesn't do anything to strengthen your argument, it just looks sad on your end that thats what you have to resort to to make a point. Its also sad that you legitimately believe your own conjecture accounts for anything.
 
Last edited:
Oct 28, 2017
898
Honestly I'm surprised EA even gave them so many years to make this game. It seems to me like Bioware is more responsible for the Anthem travesty than EA, tbh :/
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,604
BioWare has been on a downwards trend since post Mass Effect 2. I want to say they should have made a Knights of the Old Republic 3, but we probably wouldn't like the end result of that either.
 
Oct 25, 2017
6,348
Okay, sure.

However, Anthem getting made is heavily influenced by EA's business expectations and practices. An online co-op loot shooter is actually a much easier pitch with access to loads of more funding instead of Bioware's Single Player offerings of the past.

So yeah, they weren't forced to make it, but that doesn't mean that they weren't railroaded into it either.
What?
 
Mar 14, 2018
1,192
Executive pressure is more subtle than "Make this game!" - it's resource maneuvering and "Where's your version of FIFA Ultimate Team?"
For sure, but that's not EA going to BioWare and saying "you need to make us a Destiny clone" - it's EA saying "if you want resources, show us how your game is going to make long-term revenue." Huge difference there!
It looks like EA made it very clear they want a GaaS game with revenue tail, but in a subtle way, not in an agressive form.
Wasn't this (lack of long-term revenue) the reason they cancelled Amy Hennig's Star Wars project ?

Also, they force the studios to use Frostbite engine.
 
Jan 25, 2018
35
Yeah....not really seeing the "Huge difference there!" "Show us how your game is going to make long-term revenue" = GAAS. This crap has been the blight of gaming for years (even if I do enjoy Overwatch).
 
Mar 11, 2019
70
People tend to forget that Mass Effect 3's multiplayer was received quite favorably with 23 million matches played. BioWare asked in a survey to players if they wanted multiplayer in DA:I, and supposedly people didn't say no. And let's not forget DA:I won GOTY from almost every major outlet, including the Game Awards.

Now whether you believe Jason or not is up to you. Just as believing a former BioWare developer saying the opposite is up to you. But BioWare choosing to make a GaaS game should not be that surprising, given their prior history & successes.
 
Last edited:
Oct 25, 2017
335
Argentina
It looks like EA made it very clear they want a GaaS game with revenue tail, but in a subtle way, not in an agressive form.
Wasn't this (lack of long-term revenue) the reason they cancelled Amy Hennig's Star Wars project ?

Also, they force the studios to use Frostbite engine.
Nope, that narrative needs to die cause Bioware themselves confirmed it. And more importantly is the fact that Frostbite was the correct decision by EA for all their studios, a standard set of in house tools for all of them IS what makes sense. Frostbite not being good enough for that or complicated is DICE's fault.

People need to go back and take a listen to Jason's interview to Aaron Flynn.
JS: ...which is something that you have been heavily involved with. One misconception that I want to correct—a lot of people think that EA forced the Frostbite engine upon you guys.
AF: No, not at all; no.
JS: That was your decision, correct?
AF: Yeah, it was, actually. We had been wrapping up [Mass Effect 3] and just shipped Dragon Age 2, and we know that our Eclipse engine that we shipped DA2 on wasn’t going to cut it for a future iteration of Dragon Age. At the same time—
JS: Right, making an open world on there.
AF: Right—
KH: What were the specific limitations that you were running into?
AF: Open world, the renderer wasn’t strong enough: those were the two big ones. We thought about multiplayer as well, kind of in the backs of our minds, so we thought the next engine should at least not—we shouldn’t start with the next engine as being incapable of doing it, because—since that decision was going to come later, let’s at least see if something was going to allow that. Eclipse wasn’t; it was single-player only.
And then the [Mass Effect] Trilogy was ending, so we thought to ourselves, “Well, we’re going to need a new engine for that.” So we really just talked internally about whether we were going to have—we had three options, we said: are we going to burn Eclipse down and start something new internally; are we going to go with [Unreal Engine 4]—or the next version of [Unreal Engine 3]; I can’t remember if UE4 was announced or not—or were we going to go with Frostbite? And Frostbite had been developed at DICE and had shown some really promising results on the rendering side of things, and it was multiplayer. And so we said “Well, that’s an interesting candidate.” And when it came down to it, we talked to folks and we really liked the Frostbite option, and—again, back to this idea of being part of a community—there were more and more teams who were considering Frostbite and we were jumping in, saying “Well, why don’t we take the plunge; we’ve got to do this—”
JS: “We’ll be the guinea pigs.”
AF: Yeah! “Yeah, we’ll do it.” It was a decision that I made after hearing all of the technical deep dives in probably late 2011, I would say; about then.
JS: So just a little bit of context just in case people aren’t familiar: the Frostbite engine was developed by DICE to make battlefield games, and you guys had a lot of well-documented struggles with it because a lot of the tools weren’t there yet; a lot of the technology was designed for first-person shooters, and you guys were trying to make entirely different games. So, in retrospect, after the struggles that you guys had to go through on [Dragon Age:] Inquisition, on [Mass Effect:] Andromeda, now on Anthem—who knows what’s going on?—Do you feel like you made the right decision back then?
AF: Oh yeah, I think so. You get to be—going back to that community theme—Being part of a community of developers, especially because everybody is on it now, right? Everybody at EA other than the Sims and a couple of the mobile titles are on it. And that is powerful, it is good to be part of a group of like-minded folks who are eating all the same dog food, you know? That’s a good place—
[Jason and Kirk laugh at the idiom]
AF: It is! It’s a good place to be, and—credit to the Frostbite team, how they keep so many diverse titles on one engine, everything from FIFA to Anthem. is amazing to me, like, there’s so many—
KH: Is there an actual, physical moving of resources? Like, people going from place to place? It feels like, over the last few years, there’s been this—I’m guessing—massive, concerted effort to get EA studios running and get Frostbite working on all these different genres that it wasn’t originally designed for—is that an actual, physical thing where people are going from place to place: “Hey, I’m your Frostbite expert; I’m here to help!”
AF: Yeah, there’s definitely folks who do that. I don’t know if folks actually live—some people transfer around. Being a company with that many developers, people do take on new roles and take on new teams. But yeah, they have folks who commit themselves to making sure that game teams get the support they need, and they move from one project to another, and I know—
JS: There’s a Frostbite team, right? In Vancouver?
AF: Yeah, well there’s one in Stockholm too, right? And then there’s a second one in—there might be another one, I don’t even know. But yeah, they are experts in the internals of the engine, and their job is to make sure that teams get the support they need, and they do a great job of it.
JS: Yeah, it just feels like Frostbite has just caused so many problems for BioWare that, looking back at it…
AF: Yeah, I hear that and I get that. Certainly we would look at things and say, “Oh man, we’ve got a lot of work to do with this,” but it’s tough, right? Because it’s also true that the titles are ambitious; they’re meant to be ambitious. So, we go, “I don’t know; is it the ambition of this thing that is causing this, or is it this specific technical issue that’s causing this?”
JS:
Fair question.
AF: I think it’s safe to say that you’ve got to just work with folks to get the problems you need solved, solved, and see what happens with it and do their best with it, right?
It's all their fault.
 
Aug 23, 2018
1,063
Yeah....not really seeing the "Huge difference there!" "Show us how your game is going to make long-term revenue" = GAAS. This crap has been the blight of gaming for years (even if I do enjoy Overwatch).
The Division 2 is getting excellent reviews-in-progress. It's a GaaS game. You'll probably play The Last of Us 2. It'll be a GaaS game. Ditto for Uncharted 4.

Asking for a plan for a long term revenue tail is NOT anything close to forcing devs to make a particular type of game.
 
Oct 28, 2017
277
And more importantly is the fact that Frostbite was the correct decision by EA for all their studios, a standard set of in house tools for all of them IS what makes sense. Frostbite not being good enough for that or complicated is DICE's fault.
And yet we have Apex running on a modified Source. I don't think stardardization is reason enough to throw out expertise and Respawn's gem is there to prove it.
 
Oct 25, 2017
7,370
It's amazing that a Polish studio that started out making games on a modded Neverwinter Nights engine became the premier RPG studio while Bioware has been reduced to this crap.
 
Oct 27, 2017
1,244
People tend to forget that Mass Effect 3's multiplayer was received quite favorably with 23 million matches played. BioWare asked in a survey to players if they wanted multiplayer in DA:I, and supposedly people didn't say no. And let's not forget DA:I won GOTY from almost every major outlet, including the Game Awards.

Now whether you believe Jason or not is up to you. Just as believing a former BioWare developer saying the opposite is up to you. But BioWare choosing to make a GaaS game should not be that surprising, given their prior history & successes.
Replaying for visibility. Since people choose to ignore the writing that is right in front of them.
 
OP
OP
Nemesis162
Oct 25, 2017
12,598
Brazil
probably the fact that ubisoft releases successful large scale games, while every high budget EA game that is not sports bombs

clearly there is some crucial difference between how EA and ubisoft manage their studios
I don't know in what world you live that every game that is not sports from EA bombs. At worst those games don't reach expectations but bomb? Very uncommon.
 
Oct 27, 2017
3,360
Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence.

That's from Kotaku's exposé on Visceral's collapse. The context of that quote is 100% about demanding knowledge of that extreme level of profit above your game's core experience.
On the other hand, it is a boss wanting one of his teams to actually be successful after three vanity projects - the Dead Space trilogy - which didn't light the world on fire commercially and two terrible games with Battlefield Hardline and Dante's Inferno. We all love to say how amazing Dead Space was, but 2 million copies doesn't carry that development budget anymore.
 

Valdega

Banned
Member
Sep 7, 2018
1,609
I'm sure the pressure is as subtle as he's making it out to be, but asking "Where's your Destiny?" or saying the studio needs to get on board with the corporate-wide GaaS initiative and figure out how to monetize their games past the initial point of sell is basically forcing them to make an online game. I mean, everyone knows what happens to EA studios that don't perform. Not that the people in charge of Bioware weren't interested in giving it a try, but I doubt there was zero pressure to do it.
Yeah, when your publisher demands that you make GaaS, your options are basically limited to:
A) Multiplayer.
B) Open-world with lots of filler, DLC and microtransactions.

Traditionally, neither of those are Bioware's specialties. They tried to do B with Dragon Age: Inquisition and Mass Effect: Andromeda and it didn't work out great. Now they're trying A (with a lot of B) and unsurprisingly, it's not working out great.

When your publisher issues specific monetization and retention requirements, that severely limits your creative freedom.

You'll probably play The Last of Us 2. It'll be a GaaS game. Ditto for Uncharted 4.

Asking for a plan for a long term revenue tail is NOT anything close to forcing devs to make a particular type of game.
I think we have different definitions of GaaS. GaaS means a game receives regular updates and content for a lengthy duration post-launch, with the expectation that this support will keep players playing for years. See R6: Siege, Warframe, LoL, Fortnite, etc. Adding a multiplayer mode to your game and then abandoning it a few months after launch doesn't qualify as GaaS.
 
Last edited:
Oct 30, 2017
1,090
Nope, that narrative needs to die cause Bioware themselves confirmed it. And more importantly is the fact that Frostbite was the correct decision by EA for all their studios, a standard set of in house tools for all of them IS what makes sense. Frostbite not being good enough for that or complicated is DICE's fault.

People need to go back and take a listen to Jason's interview to Aaron Flynn.




It's all their fault.
I can't believe the self denial of that guy. Just own it. You made a bad choice. Why can't people just be honest.

I know... PR and always flipping the negative into something positive. It just looks pathetic.

I've been looking forward to what Casey will do for BW but he can be full of shit too. Prove me wrong, bring on a new era for BioWare.
 
Oct 26, 2017
1,158
This post is purely speculation on my part. Please consider that as you read it.

So basically, EA will support you as long as you are able to show them that your game will make a return in the long run.

The headache at that point is, well, what's a sustainable revenue model? Unless you come up with a brand new system, chances are you are going to include mtx in your games. Mtx are tried and true and people will pay for content.

This actually makes more sense to me than EA saying, well, game X is popular so make a clone of it. It's harder for devs to put their hearts and souls into it.
But if you flip it and tell devs, well, make the game you want to make but just remember we want an ROI of such and such such over a period of such and such and such.

What you have is a team that now says, well, we wanted to tell a story about Space Reanger X and add a twist to the genre regarding how aiming or whatever works but since we cannot accomplish that with a traditional SP campaign and free MP; why don't we revise the whole thing around long term sustainability instead. Remember those cool upgrades core to the lore? Scrap that, let's charge for them etc.

The end result is a product that might feel uninspired but underneath it all is fighting for its life. I bet you there are devs who cry inside when the original vision has to be reshaped to fit a revenue model.

The question then is: should this be the norm? Should devs go in with intent to add mtx even before an idea is first pitched?
 
Nov 3, 2017
2,635
So EA uses soft strong arm tactis, instead of hard strong arm tactics. Okay.
Yeah i don't see the big difference either. So EA doesn't directly force devs to produce this live service crap, but Indirectly through financial pressure. And then shuts the studios down if they're not happy with the business model of a certain game.
With this corporate culture it's no wonder that Bioware has gone to shit.
 
Oct 25, 2017
7,432
Do people seriously think EA just doesn't leave these studios alone though? It's pretty weird that all this studios working automously just so happen to be making the same types of overly bloated AAA live service games.
 
Oct 25, 2017
259
El Paso
This is kinda obvious if you were already under the impression that Bioware did a not-so-great job of building a game around EA's revenue expectations. Just making a game and selling it is some kind of cardinal sin to that company. What I'd put on Bioware is the decision making to dive into a subgenre that even Bungie has difficulty with before the "year two" expansions hit and smooth out the rough edges. You gotta actually get people hooked on the game before you can start gouging them for microtransactions. Nothing about the game from a content, stability, or performance standpoint even comes close.
 

LAA

Member
Oct 28, 2017
457
This was something I wondered about actually, I didn't think EA were all to blame here, but really it's hard to not see it that way because.. Bioware has just made a lot of mistakes in Anthem which they could/should have avoided looking at Destiny/Division etc. as if they weren't quite sure how to make games like then, and made the same mistakes again anyway and new mistakes beyond that, which is even more sad if this was a project they genuinely wanted to get behind and make great.
Really not thought about the game again since beating it as all it wants me to do now is replay the little content it has available over and over again.
Something that will improve I'm sure with time, as did Destiny, but maybe shouldn't have encouraged doing that to the degree they want right now.
 
Oct 27, 2017
2,684
Of course "where's your version of FUT?" doesn't directly translate to lootboxes and gambling mechanics, but when someone like Amy Henning presents a single player game she wants to work on and gets asked that question, how is she going to respond? And will EA accept the answer that "well if we make a kickass SP game it'll sell for years and make money off those sells and recoup costs many times over"?
 
Mar 20, 2018
2,532
Switzerland
It makes perfect sense that any studio would want to have a game with a recurring revenue stream.

That revenue means people can keep being employed without having to worry how much money the next game has to make and the next and the next.

Optimally Anthem would keep living forever with part of its profits going to fund other Bioware endeavors, such as the much riskier Single Player games people always clamor for(but rarely actually buy unless its First Party console stuff and ever more rare non exclusive).
 
Oct 25, 2017
335
Argentina
And yet we have Apex running on a modified Source. I don't think stardardization is reason enough to throw out expertise and Respawn's gem is there to prove it.
Do keep in mind that Apex started development before Respawn was owned by EA, that happened on Nov 2017. Chances are their Star Wars game is being done on Frostbite. Also, the point is that EA doesn't enforce the usage of Frostbite, they prefer the studios to use it since you have the people capable of modifying to your needs right there with you.

And still, if Frostbite wasn't capable of doing everything Bioware wanted, then set ambitions to realistic goals and design around those limitations, you can't simply launch the game broken and blame the engine for that. All the problems they had with Frostbite are consistent cause the same people keep working with it.