EA kills Maxis.

[destrekor]

Of course it is, but that in no way contradicts what I said. Bioware would still be making the same mass appeal milk toast whether or not they got involved with EA, because that's the entire industry now.

Not necessarily. Without a major publisher like EA breathing down their neck, they might not push relentlessly toward a boring mass appeal game.

The Witcher 3 is going to be bigger in every way than the second one, and added consoles from the get-go, and yet, I'm not worried one bit that the game will be anything but great. With it having some features from the Nvidia GameWorks libraries added, I'm a bit worried about how well it runs on AMD GPUs, but that's a different matter. I don't expect the game to be watered down or any less difficult, or have extensive hand-holding.

Games are moving toward the mainstream simply because gaming itself has moved into the mainstream. Games can now rival major motion pictures for production quality, voice talent, and story. That's what the market generally wants, and frankly, I like that too. Good soundtracks, good voice work, terrific and engrossing story, and a world worth exploring. Multiplayer-focused games are going to be what they are, but the big RPG experiences, from even lesser-known studios, are going to be big productions, or at least dressed up to seem like a big production. That doesn't mean it has to be dull and hand-holding, that's something the major studios push because they want every last potential dollar. A studio like CDPR will make their big game the way they see fit, not worried if 20% of the potential market hates it because it is too challenging.

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

boring mass appeal game.

Some might say that's a contradiction (both "boring" and "mass appeal" being used to describe something), but not really. The compromises that must often be inflicted upon a game to make it "appeal to the masses" often render it shallow of depth. Easy to play, but lacking certain oomph.

 

[Jodell88]

Valve is a major exception, however, Valve's business focus on the storefront and related activities (SteamOS et all) is more akin to the publisher-side of Valve. Valve still has internal development teams that do not have anything to do with that aspect of Valve. They have, for instance, been working on Source 2. I suspect they may have been tasked a little to help port Source engine and their own in-house productions to Linux and OpenGL, but otherwise they do have their own projects.

But Valve, as a developer-publisher operation that has existed as a single corporation for the life of the company, is a super rare exception to how they conduct business. They didn't buy the dev studio and start flexing their muscle, they did then and do know what they want to do.

They have the opportunity to take their time and make us Half Life 3 on Source 2 at the pace they require to make what will ultimately be one of the best FPS games of the century, so I don't mind this one bit. :awe:

To add to your statements, they are heavily investing in Khronos' Vulkan API. They developed a Vulkan driver for Intel graphics. Source 2 can use Vulkan even though the API will not be released till the end of this year at the earliest.

 

[destrekor]

Some might say that's a contradiction (both "boring" and "mass appeal" being used to describe something), but not really. The compromises that must often be inflicted upon a game to make it "appeal to the masses" often render it shallow of depth. Easy to play, but lacking certain oomph.

I would agree.

However I would also add there IS a way to do it right.

I think a way to explain the difference would be the difference between targeting 20 million in sales in the first six months as opposed to targeting 5-10 million in that time frame. These are higher numbers than many games EVER had 10-15 years ago, let alone way back. There are new norms of success for the big production games.

Heck, think of what made Zelda: Ocarina of Time such a mega-hit that transcended generations and gamers who had different game preferences, compared to, say, Body Harvest.

Funny note about Body Harvest: that was developed by a studio that would eventually become Rockstar North, and before the rename had actually started the GTA series (of which they still helm as the main developer).

That latter actually helps prove the point too: big games can reach bigger crowds, without sacrificing what makes the game so good, or becoming too far removed from earlier games in the series. Body Harvest was sort of DMA's first experiment with 3D, and they used that to lead into GTA 3 development.

Compare how much better GTA has continued to get as a series, even though it is reaching higher and higher sales numbers. And aside from their first real outing with online being buggy at first, the single-player game was fantastic from the start.

Now compare the startling success of Diablo 3, and how much was changed from the past games to make it more accessible for the masses.

It's a very fine and confused line. The very same core reason exists for why both types of "critical success" games reach such massive sales numbers: word of mouth and people enjoy themselves. Some are because the game is "dumbed down" and presented in a very glossy way with a ton of advertising, while others are simply phenomenal games that play exactly as we expect from the series, and that is why it continues to get more popular.

This is why BF4 is as successful as it is, while many agree it pales in comparison to BF3. I hope the new Battlefront will be closer to BF3 in how the game feels.

And something tells me a game like Star Citizen, once it finally reaches the "release" point and is marketed, will do very, very well for itself. I want to play it once it is ready, that's for sure. And that's a studio (or a few) taking its time to perfect a product, and this public slow-boil approach is just as effective at marketing than making a more accessible game and marketing the hell out of it.

 

[destrekor]

To add to your statements, they are heavily investing in Khronos' Vulkan API. They developed a Vulkan driver for Intel graphics. Source 2 can use Vulkan even though the API will not be released till the end of this year at the earliest.

That is a relatively new thing, but yes, at this point that is yet another focus for their internal development teams. They do have multiple teams, and not all of them are even involved with the actual hard engine work, but they might get tied up with the polishing of games once their underlying engine has been ported.

And a lot of teams are able to work with Vulkan now because it has been in developers hands for some time, as they are the ones who are helping polish it up before release. It's not too dissimilar to DX12, though that one is held a little more tightly I suspect, and since it is a single-platform that limits how many developers even want to help work on it. Valve will be now completely dropping DirectX support from here on out, that seems like a foregone conclusion. Which is a reason I really hope Vulkan does well and every bit DX12's equal, if not better. Valve probably has the largest lead on Vulkan engine integration because that will be what Valve relies upon for major business success, as they won't have to worry about significant porting efforts between their Linux-based SteamOS and their Windows and Mac customers.

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

This is why BF4 is as successful as it is, while many agree it pales in comparison to BF3. I hope the new Battlefront will be closer to BF3 in how the game feels.

For infantry combat, I think Battlefront has a chance.

But what are they going to do with vehicles? I didn't play the first two Battlefronts much but I don't recall them having much in the way of ground vehicles, and as for the air/space vehicles, weren't they done pretty crappy? No believable space physics, etc?

What are they likely to do for this one? Have everything on the ground to get around modeling space?

 

[destrekor]

For infantry combat, I think Battlefront has a chance.

But what are they going to do with vehicles? I didn't play the first two Battlefronts much but I don't recall them having much in the way of ground vehicles, and as for the air/space vehicles, weren't they done pretty crappy? No believable space physics, etc?

What are they likely to do for this one? Have everything on the ground to get around modeling space?

Not a clue. DICE never handled the Battlefront series, and this is sort of a reboot, so DICE can basically do whatever they want, within reason.

I'm not expecting accurate space physics for space fights if they include them, but I don't know if they'll even do space fights at all, everything might be within atmosphere. You don't really see that done right for anything outside of the more hardcore sim-style space games, save for some low-grav foot-soldier play in a few games.

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

Not a clue. DICE never handled the Battlefront series, and this is sort of a reboot, so DICE can basically do whatever they want, within reason.

I'm not expecting accurate space physics for space fights if they include them, but I don't know if they'll even do space fights at all, everything might be within atmosphere. You don't really see that done right for anything outside of the more hardcore sim-style space games, save for some low-grav foot-soldier play in a few games.

Well, considering the changes from BF2 to 3, I'm sure we'll see map sizes that are found wanting and packed-tight control point areas/flags so that you can find people to shoot at within seconds. Operation Metro, that is, Operation Coruscant!

 

[motsm]

Not necessarily. Without a major publisher like EA breathing down their neck, they might not push relentlessly toward a boring mass appeal game.

Bioware getting picked up by a major publisher was inevitable, the way I see it.

 

[destrekor]

Bioware getting picked up by a major publisher was inevitable, the way I see it.

That's a separate point entirely.

But on that, I do agree, that's the landscape these days: quite similar, there are now only somewhere around 10 multinational corporations that control basically the entire food and personal products industries.

The game industry is rapidly becoming controlled by a handful of publishers as they swallow up the studios. The quality studios that have remained independent or otherwise under minimal control are few and far between.

 

[motsm]

That's a separate point entirely.

I see it as the same point, since if people are going to blame EA for ruining Bioware, there must be some better alternative in their mind. Yet, the only alternative I see is Bioware sitting under some other major publisher and doing the exact same thing, which is no better. So in other words, I don't see EA as being at fault, it's just the state of industry that inevitably led Bioware to where they are now. Either way, it's just semantics, and I suppose off topic from Maxis anyway.

 

[Maximilian]

Someone actually defending EA on a PC gaming forum lmfao... Now ive seen it all!

 

[motsm]

Someone actually defending EA on a PC gaming forum lmfao... Now ive seen it all!

EA stinks, but they have a record that speaks for itself, so I don't think fabricated (imo) things need to get thrown onto it. Bioware deserves to share the blame at the very least. :Edit: Of course I don't know what the blame would be really "You guys became really successful, but no longer cater to my niche tastes, SCREW YOU!".

 

[ShintaiDK]

EA didnt kill Maxis. They did that themselves.

Remember EA bought them in 1997. Thats 18 years ago.

 

[CuriousMike]

FTFY

EA didnt kill Maxis. Mobile did.

 

[CuriousMike]

Curious Mike - sorry to hear man! I had no idea you even worked in the industry. What was your role?

Good luck! And I hope everything works out for you soon.

I'm a software engineer. Thanks for the luck - the developers/designers/artists leaving Maxis should all have their choice of jobs.

Their work is at a different level than the industry standard.

 

[Morbus]

If there's one thing that I've learned working as a web programmer is that it doesn't matter how good the engineer is if the designers and the leads don't come up with good work.

The inverse is also true. Some of my worst products as a programmer are some of my company's best websites.

The same applies to Maxis' games. They may be bug free (relatively speaking), which they are NOT, but when the design is flawed and the direction is dishonest (I'm looking at you Sims 4 and Sim City!), it's hopeless.

 

[MrPickins]

I wanted sim tower 2!!!!!!!!

So much this.

 

[SlickSnake]

I wanted to chime in about the EA Bioware merger. I don't think this was a typical EA acquisition. Bioware still handles all their own billing and in house development. From what I can see, all EA does, is take a chunk of the proceeds from the buyout. And SWTOR is still at the top of EAs moneymakers, too. But, if EA disrupted that and interfered in any way with a game like SWTOR at this point, then all the value in Bioware would probably be lost. I would imagine EA has to take these things into account when making acquisitions like this. And most of the time the acquired companies have already gone so far downhill by the time EA buys them out, that it's really just about transferring the intellectual property, more than making a new game based on that property, at least in the short term, that is.

It should never take a software company 10 or fifteen years to develop a new game, and a company like that don't deserve to be on life support forever. Duke Nukem anyone?

 

[mizzou]

ea usually comes in after success and new ipos have already been achieved. Even the greatest artists can only achieve a few good albums

 

[potzocalli]

My thoughts exactly. Several development studios or software companies have gone kaput. It is a very competitive market and just a couple of bad titles can put you in red number.

Remember Activision, Micropose, Epyx, SSI? They were all well known game developers with well known games and they eventually disappeared.

CuriousMike, I can only hope the best for you in future endeavors.

 

[Lonyo]

Activision merged with Blizzard to get super big, not because they had issues. And they still exist.

 

[Muadib]

Simcity rocked! It was the first pc game that I was addicted to. RIP Maxis.

 

[clok1966]

ea usually comes in after success and new ipos have already been achieved. Even the greatest artists can only achieve a few good albums

There is some real truth to this, no doubt. But you take 20 artists, assuming all 20 will tank after success is kinda broad. Many should continue to make good music and many wont. But IN EA case, they buy up 20 devs and 19 die, if maybe 10-15 died it would be more in tune with what your saying, but almost all devs next games with EA are savaged (not all, there is a bit of blind devotion (apple like) for BF it seems. Just an opinion, BF42 was the best, they have all been downhill since. On the upside EA owned them the whole time (or published them at least).