Dragon Age: The Veilguard - Wrong Tone?

[HiddenX]

The Nerd Stash thinks Dragon Age: The Veilguard failed because it got its tone wrong.

Thanks Couchpotato!

More information.

 

[Arahael]

It failed because Bioware and EA made the wrong decisions.

And they’re still doing it. Recently, EA’s CEO Andrew Wilson suggested that Veilguard didn’t resonate with a "broad enough audience" at a time when players "increasingly seek shared-world features."

Former Dragon Age lead Mike Laidlaw even claimed that live service features would have helped Veilguard, saying, "the key to this successful single-player IP’s success is to make it purely a multiplayer game."

How can people be so wrong?

Daniel Vávra, co-founder of Kingdom Come: Deliverance developer Warhorse Studios, stated that they recouped their entire investment in just 24 hours. Why? Because they focused on making a game that fans of the first title would love—improving it by listening to constructive criticism of the previous game and developing it with a sensible budget. Is it perfect? No. Is it fun? Hell yeah.

 

[Vaelith]

Something to keep in mind is that their target audience has shifted. I don't think they particularly care if the game pleases the old-school players who enjoyed Dragon Age: Origins, as that's a small niche that can only get them so far, and the scope of their project is so much larger, especially considering the budget at which they create games.

They probably want to appeal the broader audience of players that buy God of War or Assassin's Creed games, and at that, they failed to meet the mark; with that in mind, they probably have identified the reasons that made this game not to have the level of success of those other games, and the tone is definitely something that stands out.

In my opinion, their most questionable choice is sticking with the Dragon Age franchise. It's inevitably rooted in its origins, and trying to take a cult product to turn it into action-RPG fast food did not work as well as they hoped.

They should explore the possibility of abandoning the IP, perhaps even outsource it to some smaller studio that would be up to honoring its roots with a smaller budget, while they take on new projects that players are not entitled to shoot down because of unmet expectations and nostalgia.

 

[bjon045]

Which is ironic statement considering DA Origins sold over 6 million copies more than 10 years ago and veilguard has sold 2 million with a bigger potential audience.

I agree that getting a new one made cheaply in a place like eastern Europe is the only viable way we get another DA gama at this point.

 

[Vaelith]

Hmm.. the number I'm getting for DA:O sales is 3.2 million, but I quickly Googled it, didn't check in-depth. DA:V will likely end up selling more than that, and their sale target was probably in 5+ million before the first year was out (I read something like that anyway); I do think it would reignite the interest on the IP if someone like Harebrained Schemes or Owlcat took it under their wing.

The idea of it is igniting something in me, even though I know there's no chance of it happening.

 

[JFarrell71]

Former Dragon Age lead Mike Laidlaw even claimed that live service features would have helped Veilguard, saying, "the key to this successful single-player IP’s success is to make it purely a multiplayer game."

You mean like Anthem, Mike?

Bioware has become irrelevant to my interests. Which is fine, because there are plenty of studios (Owlcat, Obsidian, CDPR, Warhorse, InXile, SquareEnix, Lost Pilgrims, Questline, Larian, and more) ably filling that role.

 

[ChaosTheory]

What surprises me, even now, is that more people are talking about this game than actually playing it.

 

[bjon045]

Hmm.. the number I'm getting for DA:O sales is 3.2 million, but I quickly Googled it, didn't check in-depth.

I think it this case I might have mixed it up with BG1/2/TotSC/ToB. I think they sold 6 mil if you include them all together. DA:O looks like 3.2 mil back in 2010 so it might have got another 1 mil units in the decade+ since but you are right that it wouldn't have gotten close to 6.

 

[Andrew23]

For years, EA is forcing Bioware route which is killing the company, while they could make millions and millions by respecting its pedigree and nurturing its fanbase. Like complete idiots standing in front of wall, trying to break it using heads. Let them die, from every comment they make its clear they are not able to learn their lesson. Corporate shits.

Thankfully, there are younger companies, who are able to control their budgets and make millions on niche audience, which, when you are able to easily address whole world today, is not so niche anymore.

 

[JDR13]

For years, EA is forcing Bioware route which is killing the company, while they could make millions and millions by respecting its pedigree and nurturing its fanbase.

Maybe, but how many of the old devs from back in their glory years are still with the company anyways? Even if EA gave them 100% freedom, there's no guarantee they'd make a good game.

 

[Andrew23]

Maybe, but how many of the old devs from back in their glory years are still with the company anyways? Even if EA gave them 100% freedom, there's no guarantee they'd make a good game.

I dont disagree. Time when it could be saved is probably long gone.

 

[rjshae]

Given that EA makes most of their money via live services these days, I suppose it's a surprise that they decided to drop it for this game. Then again I'm not optimistic that EA/Bioware can make a decent RPG these days, and I certainly wasn't optimistic about this release. It's too bad though; this setting could still be a successfully IP in the hands of a more focused developer.

 

[bjon045]

Given that EA makes most of their money via live services these days

Is that from all their sports/action/franchise games? Don't their sports games even have virtual currency? I used to love NBA Live 95' back in the day but they have gone so far overboard re: microtransactions and live service I don't think I could stomach playing them these days. Play X number of games per week to earn bonus points for leveling up your team?!?!? How about just letting them level up at a decent rate during your single player career mode? (I think this may have been improved in this years iteration).

 

[guenthar]

EA is good at destroying companies and franchises and have been doing that since the 90's with Origin and I'm surprised Bioware has lasted this long.

 

[Dolby]

Well, whatever the reasons...some of us gave warnings for months - years..

Anyway it's good to see that it was demonstrated again that singleplayer story driven rpgs are not dead... I say fuck life service... Been going on at Bioware for ages now since the partner trade and sale to EA...

GOod to know that story RPGs can keep AAA studios live IF they make Half decent singleplayer games.

But if you do it by suits and committee and on check lists chasing the latest trends, you may as well close the doors and not bother at all.

 

[Stefan99]

Something to keep in mind is that their target audience has shifted. I don't think they particularly care if the game pleases the old-school players who enjoyed Dragon Age: Origins, as that's a small niche that can only get them so far, and the scope of their project is so much larger, especially considering the budget at which they create games.

They probably want to appeal the broader audience of players that buy God of War or Assassin's Creed games, and at that, they failed to meet the mark; with that in mind, they probably have identified the reasons that made this game not to have the level of success of those other games, and the tone is definitely something that stands out.

In my opinion, their most questionable choice is sticking with the Dragon Age franchise. It's inevitably rooted in its origins, and trying to take a cult product to turn it into action-RPG fast food did not work as well as they hoped.

They should explore the possibility of abandoning the IP, perhaps even outsource it to some smaller studio that would be up to honoring its roots with a smaller budget, while they take on new projects that players are not entitled to shoot down because of unmet expectations and nostalgia.

And in trying to appeal to a broader audience they lost lots of their core audience and failed to attract a new audience. Meanwhile a series they started sold over 10 mil copes in bg3, a big majority of that audience would be the Dao "niche" .

EA is good at destroying companies and franchises and have been doing that since the 90's with Origin and I'm surprised Bioware has lasted this long.

Jip bw's was sealed the day EA acquired them. Slowly but surely they have destroyed them.

 

[vanedor]

And in trying to appeal to a broader audience they lost lots of their core audience and failed to attract a new audience. Meanwhile a series they started sold over 10 mil copes in bg3, a big majority of that audience would be the Dao "niche" .

So true. BG3 did nothing very revolutionary. The core mechanisms of the game, with the exception of the turn-based mode, were already there over 20 years ago in BG2. Big world to explore, party members to interact with, lot of freedom in how you fight and how you build your characters and your party. DnD - tabletop inspired mechanisms. Moral decisions with the possibility of being "bad". Good dialogs. Companions you care about. They remained true to the original.

All of this with less than half of Veilguard's budget.

 

[Vaelith]

All true, but BG3 is an exception, not the rule. The next CRPG after BG3 has about 1/5th of its sales, that being either Pathfinder Wrath of the Righteous or Divinity Original Sin, which are also outliers in the genre when it comes to the average CRPG level of success.

For other genres, getting BG3's level of profit/sales is more or less the norm, and it doesn't require the game to be a fluke or once in a lifetime masterpiece. Any average FIFA, Call of Duty, or God of War gets instant guaranteed massive sales.

So the reasoning is simple, these companies are run by investors and shareholders, and they don't want risk, they want profit, which is much more predictable by making that type of game, and the proof of that is that even when being considered a product that did not meet expectations, Dragon Age: Veillguard still sold over 2 million copies by now, and in a year or so it will pass all-time Dragon Age: Origins sales, which is at 3.2 million.

If DA:V had flopped as a CRPG, with a much more niche audience, it would have been much, much worse for them financially. It could have fluked massively too like BG3, but that's not excuse either, because we had an Action/Adventure RPGish game like Wukong fluke and it put BG3 to shame in number of sales, players, profit etc. So you can do better with an Action Adventure/RPG game than with a CRPG in all cases. Why would they settle for the lesser option?

I don't like it myself either because I'm a CRPG fan myself, I wish they had gone that way. But these people are highly trained people who become millonaires out of making hard decisions and driving business, and while giving opinions from a gaming chair is all cool and respectable, I would at the very least give them the benefit of the doubt on that they know what they're doing.

PS: That's all from a business perspective. As a gamer, I obviously don't like the way it is. But that's a different discussion.

 

[bjon045]

For other genres, getting BG3's level of profit/sales is more or less the norm, and it doesn't require the game to be a fluke or once in a lifetime masterpiece. Any average FIFA, Call of Duty, or God of War gets instant guaranteed massive sales.

Holy moley. I checked the dev costs and they spend 600-700 million making those CoD games now. BG3 is having close to that level of success without costing more than some countries.

The biggest problem with Veilguard for them is that they rebooted it 3 times and it cost a fortune compared to what it should of cost. That dev cycle was just far too long. BG3 sold more in just EA and it didn't get rebooted.

 

[Beren]

Sorry for the thread necro, but I found this pretty compelling review by a transgender gamer who takes issue with both the transgender representation and the overall gameplay:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6EfU2K6D4w