top 97 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 61 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

That means all BioWare games should become free now, because a closed studio can't get the money? /s

Of course EA will have no problem getting money on their behalf, all while slashing the developers. If you waited for a call to legitimately pirate BioWare games, this is it.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

    EA employees worked on BioWare games. I know because my brother is one of them.

    He worked on Dragon Age, while being an EA employee.

    So EA owns all the rights to collect money from their games for that reason and because EA owned BioWare

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 115 points 2 weeks ago (29 children)

    I keep hearing that EA isn’t responsible for this, because BioWare games have gone to shit recently. Does anyone honestly believe that EA’s takeover, corporate culture, and demands on the studio didn’t contribute to the drop in quality?

    EA and other corpos’ death grip doesn’t start at the end when it all falls apart. The death grip is there from the moment you sell.

  • source
  • hideshow 29 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

    BioWare itself was a corporation, and that's the problem. It ruined itself just as much as EA ruined it.

    An outcome like this is inevitable when your goal is infinitely compounding returns on investments.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 2 weeks ago* (2 children)

    We should just go after all the money of the people who sell the studios. Everyone always forgets that for every game studio Equity Almighty destroys there's a former owner sitting on a fat pile of cash that a whole group of people worked together to build, 120% tax on all assets of the assholes who traded a cool company for a pile of cash from the most evil people in the world.

    We used to hate the sellouts for being sellouts. Now they just aren't talked about, like selling out is inevitable and in many ways the whole point.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 weeks ago

    Agree with everything you have to say. We have become far too tolerant on bad behaving peers. Now they get called innovative and lots allude to be like them. It’s the new fame. Few people get rich in a conscientious way.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 2 weeks ago (23 children)

    Yeah, 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 23 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (11 children)

    Persued 'live-service' games, using game engines that don't fit, constantly shifting direction of games in development, focusing on a generic streamlined cinematic experience then telling a good, character-driven story with impactful and controversial choices, use Denuvo, stop releasing modding tools, ...

    If an independent studio does this stuff... Then they should look for better managers.

    The first games that felt off to me where DA2 and ME3, but I played through them, they were still enjoyable. DA:I was bland and boring, so I dropped it, after that I didn't see a return to the studio that I remembered.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 weeks ago (10 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    I'm assuming it was a deliberate jab at how Bioware have been handled because that's exactly what they did

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago

    Ah, they edited their comment as I was writing up mine. What they wrote before was exactly what Bungie did when they were independent. And if they did exactly the same things why would be assume EA killed Bioware but Bungie get them in their dire state on their own? Even with what the other person now changed the question stays the same. Why should we assume EA made them do those things instead of considering the possibility that they chose to do those things on their own? We have an example of a company making those same decisions all on their own and I think the relationship between EA and Bioware (especially when compared to some other studios like Visceral) EA did put some trust and autonomy into Bioware. I just don't see how it's inconceivable that Bioware could make those bad decisions on their own.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago (7 children)

    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...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago (6 children)

    Okay, so without being what would Bioware have to do for you to blame Bioware for being shut down?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

    Okay, so without being what would Bioware have to do for you to blame Bioware for being shut down?

    Now I have trouble parsing your question.

    Didn't I just answer that?

    If BioWare would be independent, or maybe under a hypothetical 'good guy EA', and produced bad, bland, uninspired games, or dig themselves into one massive, feature-creep game, which eats all their money, but never releases, then I would blame them. So, if their management sucks. BioWare had enough money to find and hire good designers, writers, artists and programmers. If they suddenly start creating niche games, without broad appeal, that would be fine to, in my book.

    Trying desperately to appeal to a broad demographic, instead of playing to their strength, and their established fanbase, is what makes bland games.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago (4 children)

    Under EA what would Bioware have to do for you to say "yeah, Bioware is at fault here"? Because my argument is that EA gave Bioware all the chances to succeed and despite getting all the chances they still couldn't succeed.

    And I never said EA is the good guy here. EA is not the good guy. But being an asshole company doesn't instantly mean you're to blame for everything.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (3 children)

    Your argument isn't an argument, it is an assertion without any evidence, or even clear logical path.

    Were you there in the talks between BioWare people and EA? Do you know what EA ask directly or indirectly through implication BioWare to do? How they should or shouldn't design their games? What they should integrate or not and what to focus on? What they should implement? What kind of stories BioWare is allowed to write? And the employees are treated? If they where given creative freedom, a good compensation?

    I don't know any of these things. My argument comes more down on the proverb "The fish stinks from its head." And the observation that BioWare produced good games before ME3 and DA2. Then something must have happened, notable game designers left the company, and they produced bland games.

    It could have been some BioWare manager that messed stuff up. But why didn't EA replace them, or why were they even placed into that position in the first place? I don't know... All I know is that someone at the top could have prevented it, if they wanted to. And at the top was EA people.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    How about you answer the question

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 child)

    Okay, so if any proof or evidence came out that proves that the BioWare leadership or employees themselves did something bad or self destructive...

    Whatever it is, without the direction of EA, then they take the blame for that. You haven't provided me any such evidence yet. Meanwhile, I'm sticking with what is known, and my conviction than any competent leadership could have prevented it, because it wasn't a natural disaster that happened here.

    I'm sure that EA managers are payed enough so that they can take the blame, I will not subject the developers, that just lost they employment, to that. That seems like victim blaming.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago

    Okay, so if any proof or evidence came out that proves that the BioWare leadership or employees themselves did something bad or self destructive…

    Have you read Jason Schreier's article on how Anthem went wrong? Excluding the technical problems from the Frostbite engine everything wrong with Anthem was on Bioware. They couldn't lock down what the scope of the game was, they couldn't agree on the story and the studio functioned on what they called “BioWare magic.” which is a hope that the game will come together at the end. And until the very end the message from the leadership was that "Bioware magic will come and everything will work out". That Bioware magic had been around since at least the very first Mass Effect game (possibly sooner, I don't remember how long that had been going on).

    I'll also link this article for a quote.

    Darrah says he doesn't feel like he had a choice, however, because "EA was very good at making Bioware feel like things were very dire." Though, he points to the fact that Hudson's replacement as Bioware's general manager, Gary McKay, was able to delay Dragon Age: Veilguard through multiple financial years. "That tells me either he's magic, which is possible, or it was never quite as 'gun to our head' as we thought it was," Darrah says.

    To me that indicates the people leading the studio didn't know how to communicate with EA. I've worked in corporate for years. The people at the top are so disconnected from the actual work it's common for them to set unreasonable expectations. It's part of the job of the people between the top and the people actually doing the job to temper the expectations from the people of the top so they could allocate resources (be it people, time or anything else) so the people actually doing the job can do their job. Whoever was the leadership at Bioware (even if they're appointed by EA, they're still a part of Bioware) failed at their job to temper the expectations from EA. As the quote indicates McKay got that part of the job, which is why Veilguard got the delays it needed even though it didn't help because they were constantly scrambling to for a vision they couldn't realize.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 2 weeks 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 2 weeks ago (8 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago (4 children)

    EA didn't force them, Bioware pitched Anthem as a live-service style game from the get-go.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

    There's no clear date on when the Anthem pitch happened but it happened before EA appointed Bromberg as the CEO, which was in 2013. 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 48 points 2 weeks ago (17 children)

    When they got sold to ea, this was the only possible outcome anyway. Not sure if they sold out or ea did some corporate bullshit to force them to it, but they should have stayed away from ea if they wanted to keep making games.

  • source
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 2 weeks ago (14 children)

    The founders and original lead developers - Ray Muzyka and Greg Zeschuk - created over a dozen games before they sold the company.

    Idk what else you'd want. They did their thing and then they cashed out to live their lives doing other things.

    Bioware wasn't even supposed to be a video game company. It was originally founded to pioneer medical technology and only pivoted when their side project - Shattered Steel - outperformed expectations.

    Sometime people need to stop being mad because one participate Treats Train has finally ended it's run. Be glad for the games you got, not sad because it's over

    After all, you've still got Larian and Paradox and Owlcat and a thousand other indie studios making equivalent games.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 weeks ago (10 children)

    The problem is that EA will still squat on the IP for the indefinite future, so nobody gets to do anything with it later.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 weeks ago (9 children)

    I mean, the IP is pretty generic.

    Mass Effect isn't the first game to use space cops and robot aliens fighting over the fate of the galaxy. The Expanse did Mass Effect's storyline much better.

    That's before you consider how played out the Mass Effect IP already is. Just like Halo, they peaked at game 3. That was the apex of the story.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago (8 children)

    Mass Effect is a wonderfully constructed world; I disagree on you there.

    I’d also argue ME3 is not the peak. The best gameplay, sure, but a more questionable campaign IMO.

    You are not wrong about the story trajectory though. They wrote themselves into a corner with the Reaper arc, and that is done now. But I do think “Shepard-free, smaller story spinoffs” were the correct move, rather than trying to pick up a story that should be done (like Halo did).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago (7 children)

    But I do think “Shepard-free, smaller story spinoffs” were the correct move

    Sure. But then it's just a generic scifi.

    You don't need to own IP to make Mass Effect minus the title characters

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (6 children)

    No it's not. They can use the entire world they constructed, its history, and (for the players) all the nostalgia. And selectively bring back characters.

    I mean, that immediately drew me into this trailer.

    Halo is an entirely different beast. They could not let the MC/Cortana go like they are stuck to them with a chain, but side stories in that world would have been interesting too.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago (5 children)

    They can use the entire world they constructed, its history, and (for the players) all the nostalgia

    Or they can write up something new, just like the Mass Effect guys did.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (3 children)

    Look. I’m all for a new world.

    But there’s nothing wrong with building on a good, existing constructed world, too. They can do both. You mentioned publishers that did that quite successfully, at the top of this thread: Owlcat, Paradox, and especially Larian.

    It’s also quite practical from a development perspective. It’s easier to pitch to get funding, they already have lore experts on the team, mechanics they don’t have to invent from scratch.

    I’m just not buying that Mass Effect is a “dead end.” It’s a great setting, there’s tons to explore, and they’ve already broken away from the main trap of being stuck with Sheperd. Halo is a bit different not because they wrote themselves into a corner (which ME aid also guilty of), but that they utterly refused to leave it, amongst other things.


    I will say that I think BioWare just deteriorated.

    …There’s no getting around that, whether they start from scratch or not.

    I have the same opinion of Halo. I vividly remember forming it upon playing Halo 4, with how cheesy it felt.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    But there’s nothing wrong with building on a good, existing constructed world, too.

    I don't disagree. But folks are pretending like Mass Effect is some kind of exceptionally novel or revolutionary IP. It's really not. This is some really basic tier SciFi. You could scratch the serial numbers off the side and make "Enlarged Consequences" with no real threat of liability.

    I’m just not buying that Mass Effect is a “dead end.” It’s a great setting, there’s tons to explore, and they’ve already broken away from the main trap of being stuck with Sheperd. Halo is a bit different not because they wrote themselves into a corner (which ME aid also guilty of), but that they utterly refused to leave it, amongst other things.

    I mean, I don't disagree entirely. I just think the core ideas of Mass Effect have percolated through the genre of open world space adventure game. And now we've got a plethora of alternatives that strike the same central cords. You don't need the Mass Effect IP to make a successor to the game any more than you needed the Halo IP to make Destiny.

    If I'm going to be sad about anything, it's really the Dragon Age IP, which I think was cooking with something a bit more novel than "Evil Aliens Exterminate Humanity While Humans and Demi-Humans Bicker Over Politics".

    Now "Evil Dragons Exterminate Humanity While Humans and Demi-Humans Bicker Over Politics"! There's a keeper

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 child)

    Now “Evil Dragons Exterminate Humanity While Humans and Demi-Humans Bicker Over Politics”! There’s a keeper

    Wherever those BioWare employees land, they should do fantasy space opera, like Shadowrun. With that premise. In space.

    Make it Bioware-y, with drama and sexy elves and armor lights and lens flare.

    Both for something fresh, but also to spite EA.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago

    I think theres a large group of people that are committed to the sunken cost fallacy. Just because a lot of effort went into something, and it was enjoyed for a long time, doesnt mean it needs to continue on forever.

    Especially when we are talking about art, if we never let go of things there will not be room for new art and artists.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    Paradox just added a expansion for your comment. To unlock please pay $12.99...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    $12.99 for... another 200 hours of content? Wtf! In this economy?!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago

    More like $12.99 for core functionality that should have been released with the game (cities skylines is the worst for this). I'm all for reasonable pricing to cover the costs of development, but chaining together a dozen expansions and making a $40 game cost an additional $160 is bonkers. Its deceptive pricing, and it shouldn't be excused just because you like small studios making better games. It would be better to release games when they are fully ready and have a roadmap of full cost available.

    Though it does look like they've now offered a subscription service to essentially rent the expansions for $8 a month, at least that provides choices.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 21 points 2 weeks ago (10 children)

    In these lists of great things to remember Bioware for, people keep not including MDK2. It told an amazing story of a mad scientist, his janitor and robot dog, repelling an alien invasion and saving Earth. Deserves to be mentioned alongside their othet awesome games.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [+] -14 points 2 weeks ago (9 children)

    You think it's popular enough that anyone knows what MDK2 even means? People after lazy and won't search that to find out. Maybe you should stop being lazy too and just woke out the actually name instead of this game you seem to think it's unforgettable will remain entirely entirely forgotten

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

    ''woke out the actually name instead''

    You're an idiot. Learn english if you're going to preach to people in this language. FYI the name of the game actually is ''MDK2''.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDK2

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] -12 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)
  • [–] 6 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    I knew the name you champion. MDK1 and 2 were my favorite games besides Army men 3DO

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    We found them! The person who had the 3DO!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago

    Brother/Sister, you have no idea how much 3DO's Army men series was a part of my life.

    I wish someone would remake Army men land sea and air, like a Company of Heroes clone.

    I use to have 5 small crates filled with plastic soldiers. They were my life.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 3 points 2 weeks ago

    Lol it's the actual name of the game.

    Apparently I wasn't lazy enough to do some leg work to figure it out (I actually knew about this game and was able to identify it by the name but that's beyond the point.)

    You're the reason why Netflix has to take into account people doom scrolling on their phones while they watch their media.

    It probably took less time for me to search, upload and write this message than it took you to type up that rancid pile of shit.

    So for everyone concerned: shut the fuck up.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    How about you tell us the ‘actual name’, sucka? Because anyone who was a gamer in 1997-2000 knows of the mystery behind that name.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 126 points 2 weeks ago (14 children)

    Eh. Bioware died a long time ago.

  • source
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 2 weeks ago (8 children)
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago (6 children)

    I'd argue slightly before. EA purchased them about the same time Mass Effect came out, which means they didn't play a part in development. I would say Mass Effect was the beginning of the end for them. Yeah, it was great, but it was the game where they started dumbing things down and moving away from the CRPG into bland action games. Mass Effect was the start of the path towards Anthem and then trying to make Dragon Age into a multiplayer live-service thing, which ended up as Veilguard.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

    Oddly enough, of their top 10 best selling games, Mass Effect was the lowest, and newer games were better selling. So sales figures say otherwise. Dumbing things down is bad for one audience, but good for another.

    https://gamerant.com/highest-selling-games-developed-bioware-ranked-how-much-sold/

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    I wonder how much this is because of dumbing down, and how much it is because the market got larger. For example in the year 2002, The Sims was the highest selling game of all time, at ~6 million copies.

    At the time, the perception of video games was still a hobby of sweaty nerds. Some years later the Wii launched, and it became really popular as a family console. It had some sports games, and I think it did a lot to get a foothold on a more general market. Games weren't just for sweaty nerds anymore. Although even then, a lot of people didn't play games.

    Then at some point the marketing shifted. Games had broader stories, they tried for more mass-market appeal by selling cinematic experiences and whatnot (remember the awful QTE era of like the late-2000s early 2010s?)

    At that point, I think gaming in general had broadened its appeal. A lot of people had consoles, PC hardware wasn't prohibitively expensive, etc.

    I don't doubt that dumbing down games has had an effect, by making things simpler and flattening the learning curve you make it more accessible. That's a given. But I also think gaming becoming a more generally accessible and socially acceptable past time was a big contributor.

    Once smart phones came along the mobile game market exploded, and I think that's still the biggest market segment, though it's moved on from its original simple puzzle games into bigger experiences, some that even translate decently well over to other mediums.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

    PS1 did a lot to legitimize gaming, probably more than Wii. Up to the SNES/Genesis generation, consoles in particular were perceived as kids' toys. With PS1, Sony and Psygnosis (who did a lot of legwork for Sony) advertised it to college-age folks, hiring The Designers Republic¹ to make the marketing materials for the console and the style of ‘Wipeout’; they put contemporary edm music in the game, made some edgy ads, and organized gaming rooms in fifty nightclubs in the UK alone. PS1 singlehandedly changed the audience of consoles away from just kids, for which Sony thanked Psygnosis by renaming them to SCE Studio Liverpool, making them develop just the ‘Wipeout’ and ‘Formula One’ series, and shutting them down altogether in 2012.

    Now guess what people who were in college in 1995, were doing in early-mid 2000s. And note also that Nintendo never really switched away from targeting their games to kids.

    ¹ The Designers Republic did cover design for many IDM producers, which genre popped up in early-mid 1990s — folks like Autechre, LFO and Aphex Twin, and specifically the Warp label, likewise based in Sheffield. Their design was pretty much the ‘face of ambient techno’.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 19 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

    They understand the cost of everything, the value of nothing

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 3 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)
  • [–] 37 points 2 weeks ago* (3 children)

    I gotta be honest, this is not unexpected at all.

    BioWare released 4 games since 2017, one of which was just a remaster/collection of the older Mass Effect titles. The other three games were Mass Effect Andromeda, Anthem, and Dragon Age Veilguard, all of which aren't exactly considered the studio's best work. These games did not sell well, obviously (and in some cases there are EA earning reports that confirm this), leading to studio closure. Honestly I am surprised this didn't happen sooner. The talent that actually made BioWares reputation probably havent been at that studio for a while.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 child)

    The talent that actually made BioWares reputation probably havent been at that studio for a while.

    Exactly. A few key figures left not long after the EA buyout. The rest trickled out over time. The Wikipedia article for Dragon Age Veilguard has an entire section dedicated to the revolving door of key staff leaving or being laid off over the course of its almost 10 year development.

    It's far from everyone, but a few names from the old Bioware are currently working on this game set to release next year, which is billing itself as a sort of spiritual successor to Mass Effect:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_(2027_video_game)

    Edit: And there is also a spiritual successor to KotOR in development with involvement of a few other key names from old Bioware.

    https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Star_Wars:_Fate_of_the_Old_Republic

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago

    This is why I still consider it fair to blame EA for downstream effects like this. There's no guarantee as independent studios that they would function better, but they at least would have original staff from star games. Like PopCap, and Reddit refuses to acknowledge EA had any part of the garbage PopCap releases now.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 15 points 2 weeks ago

    The Morons in Japan are trying to blame online piracy. Makes me wanna swallow some nails..

  • source
  • [–] 14 points 2 weeks ago

    They made my 2 favorite game series of all time. While we all known they fell a long time ago, this still makes me sad.

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 2 weeks ago

    EA has form for turning buyouts into shit. Look at PopCap who produced joyous casual-but-fair games until EA sunk their claws into them.

  • source
  • [–] 21 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

    Such a tragedy. Black Isle and Bioware were such a great combo in the late 90's.

    Just following the fate of Bethesda and Id: kiddos, your heros will die. So it goes.

    CDPR hopefully will not make these same mistakes... or they already have.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 child)

    Just to push back on this, this is long overdue.

    EA closing down studios they buy is the expected inevitable outcome

    Anyone who lets EA acquire them deserves this. It's not even a secret, so fuck everyone at BioWare who sold their company to this. You can be sad, but you don't get to be surprised

    Batteries Included – Purchased in 1987 and closed that same year. Origin Systems – Purchased in 1992. Closed in 2004. Bullfrog Productions – Purchased in 1995. Closed in 2001. Maxis – Purchased in 1997. Closed in 2015. (Studio name still used by EA.) Westwood Studios / EA Pacific – Purchased in 1998. Closed in 2003. Kesmai – Purchased in 1999. Closed in 2001. DreamWorks Interactive / Danger Close Games – Purchased in 2000. Closed in 2013. Black Box Games – Purchased in 2002. Closed in 2013. NuFX / EA Chicago – Purchased in 2004. Closed in 2007. Hypnotix – Purchased and shut down in 2005. Team folded into EA Tiburon. Mythic Entertainment – Purchased in 2006. Closed in 2014. Phenomic Game Development – Purchased in 2006. Closed in 2013. Headgate Studios / EA Salt Lake – Purchased in 2006. Closed in 2017. Pandemic Studios – Purchased in 2007. Closed in 2009. J2MSoft – Purchased in 2008 and folded into EA Korea. Playfish – Purchased in 2009. Closed in 2013. Chillingo – Purchased in 2010. Began shutting down in 2017. Fully closed in 2023. Industrial Toys – Purchased in 2018. Closed in 2023. BioWare – Purchased in 2007. Closed in 2026.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 2 weeks ago

    Note too the shit stains that now own EA.

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 2 weeks ago

    It's always the fucking suits.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    And do not pretend that they didn't told you that it's wokeness that killed the modern game industry! /s

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 weeks ago

    bioware was dead somewhere in between getting taken over by ea, long before this.

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›