Interview GamesIndustry Interviews Bioware's Development Director

[Crooked Bee]

Tags: BioWare; Electronic Arts

Dorian Kieken, Bioware Montreal's Development Director, has given an interview to GamesIndustry elucidating the company's constant worry about money and their relationship with Electronic Arts. Have some of the more interesting tidbits:

According to Kieken, the company's current status has granted it unprecedented control over its products, and the only proof that EA requires is the number on the bottom line.

"For the very first time we have control of things that we've never had control of before, things like marketing. Marketing used to be a department we were always negotiating with, but that is part of our group now," he says.

"Ultimately, EA comes to the BioWare boardroom and says. 'Here is the amount of money you have, and here is the amount of money you need to generate in X years. The way you do it is your problem.' So the growth of Bioware Montreal is in the context of the other Bioware studios. It's because we're successful with the Mass Effect series that we can grow a studio. It's all within the Bioware label strategy.

"[The trust] is something very new... I have a lot of respect for John Riccitiello. He is trying to move the company towards a vision that is very smart, with a sort of city-state culture. Basically, you're accountable only to generate revenue. I like that relationship of responsibility."

[...] "Valve, Blizzard and Bioware all had a very similar profile over a decade ago: they were all doing very high quality games that people appreciated a lot, but at a huge cost and really not selling that much. Before World of Warcraft, Blizzard as a company really wasn't doing well. They were very expensive, and their revenue didn't match how expensive they were. Valve, before the huge success of Steam, really wasn't doing well financially either.

"They had the sort of breakthroughs that allowed them not to worry about money any more - they still do, of course, but to a lesser extent. We don't have that yet at Bioware. If we have two games in a row, as expensive as we are, that don't do well at all... we need to be careful."​

Click here for the full interview.

Spotted at Gamebanshee

 

[Micmu]

They still pretend that they exist?
So what projects do they have right now, besides fiddling with the continuously declining SW:ToR and DA3 ?

 

[Infinitron]

BioWare: "We haven't had a breakthrough success"

sup Volourn!!!

[...] "Valve, Blizzard and Bioware all had a very similar profile over a decade ago: they were all doing very high quality games that people appreciated a lot, but at a huge cost and really not selling that much. Before World of Warcraft, Blizzard as a company really wasn't doing well. They were very expensive, and their revenue didn't match how expensive they were. Valve, before the huge success of Steam, really wasn't doing well financially either.

Define "doing well", you greedy asshole.

 

[Excommunicator]

"Valve, Blizzard and Bioware all had a very similar profile over a decade ago: they were all doing very high quality games that people appreciated a lot, but at a huge cost and really not selling that much. Before World of Warcraft, Blizzard as a company really wasn't doing well. They were very expensive, and their revenue didn't match how expensive they were. Valve, before the huge success of Steam, really wasn't doing well financially either.

I hate this kind of dishonest representation of the facts. Saying they weren't doing well financially when all three were independent studios with control of their own IP with highly successful products selling in the millions is like saying large profits aren't enough because only massive profits matter.

Anyway I thought it appropriate to show the face of the person saying these things.

says:

...BioWare is to keep refining its core competency of making high-end RPGs...

Indeed. Keep refining that high-end competency of yours.

 

[Infinitron]

I hate this kind of dishonest representation of the facts. Saying they weren't doing well financially when all three were independent studios with control of their own IP with highly successful products selling in the millions is like saying large profits aren't enough because only massive profits matter.

Quibble: Bioware weren't in control of their IP then (D&D, Star Wars), which was indeed their weakness compared to Blizz and Valve.

 

[circ]

Only one thing springs to mind.

WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOUR FAAACE?

 

[Infinitron]

"Ultimately, EA comes to the BioWare boardroom and says. 'Here is the amount of money you have, and here is the amount of money you need to generate in X years. The way you do it is your problem.'

BTW, does somebody have an account on GamesIndustry? I'd like to see the comments.

 

[Duraframe300]

 

[Excommunicator]

Quibble: Bioware weren't in control of their IP then (D&D, Star Wars), which was indeed their weakness compared to Blizz and Valve.

Yes, quite right. I basically glossed over Bioware to make the point. Bioware really weren't in the same league as the others anyway

 

[Deleted member 7219]

I took Dragon Age 2 and Mass Effect 3 as proof Bioware weren't safe from EA interference. Everything about those games seemed rushed and aimed at getting in ever more casual players (especially with ME3's multiplayer and lack of promised consequences for earlier choices, EA probably told them in a focus meeting, "Most of our customers won't have played ME1. Why refer to it at all?").

 

[Untermensch]

"Ultimately, EA comes to the BioWare boardroom and says. 'Here is the amount of money you have, and here is the amount of money you need to generate in X years. The way you do it is your problem.'

Hopefully this will shut up the "waaah, EA are evil and are forcing Bioware to release shit games" crowd.

So Bioware isn't releasing shit because EA forces them to do it, but because they want to?

Can't say I'm surprised.

 

[Morkar Left]

The sales numbers they will have to reach to be considered "profitable" will break their necks. It doesn't matter who is in control of what. At this situation it'S only cosmetics. Not that I believe they have the knowledge to deliver a good rpg in the first place.

 

[Infinitron]

The sales numbers they will have to reach to be considered "profitable" will break their necks. It doesn't matter who is in control of what. At this situation it'S only cosmetics.

Exactly. When you're told to deliver the money or suffer the consequences, it doesn't matter whether or not you're being told exactly how to make the money. You're still being enslaved and extorted.

 

[Roguey]

It's nice to know that Bioware's god awful, obnoxious marketing of Dragon Age is entirely their fault.

I took Dragon Age 2 and Mass Effect 3 as proof Bioware weren't safe from EA interference. Everything about those games seemed rushed and aimed at getting in ever more casual players (especially with ME3's multiplayer and lack of promised consequences for earlier choices, EA probably told them in a focus meeting, "Most of our customers won't have played ME1. Why refer to it at all?").

A former Bioware employee from... another forum said that that the console casual-direction is 100% Bioware's. Though one might say they're choosing this direction because they really need to make that paper and fast.

 

[LeStryfe79]

Yeah they've been terrified of becoming another Black Isle or Troika for a while now, but the fact is that they were never as good to begin with.

 

[waywardOne]

"For the very first time we have control of things that we've never had control of before, things like marketing. Marketing used to be a department we were always negotiating with, but that is part of our group now," he says.

Except for that whole time before they were a part of EA. Funny how that's worked out.

 

[Excommunicator]

Exactly. When you're told to deliver the money or suffer the consequences, it doesn't matter whether or not you're being told exactly how to make the money. You're still being enslaved and extorted.

I expect the real story would be in what those actual numbers are. If anything, putting pressure on a company to make a specific amount of money on a product with such high risk and uncertainty is the most pressure you can put on them. There's no doubt that number would be obnoxiously unrealistic, hence how games selling multiple millions are still not "breakthrough successes"for them.

I don't see how people can interpret this as anything other than EA putting extremely strong pressure on Bioware to deliver a certain kind of product.

 

[Infinitron]

Except for that whole time before they were a part of EA. Funny how that's worked out.

They still had publishers then...

 

[hiver]

What the guy developer of, exactly? marketing?

I see how they integrated that... hmmppff!

 

[Jashiin]

Stockholm syndrome.

anyway, I feel it's about time EA started killing more hostages.

 

[Mangoose]

Makes a bit more sense with the previous line:

Since then, BioWare has reached new heights of commercial success, becoming so vital to EA's plans that, in 2011, it was installed as one of the publisher's four core "labels". According to Kieken, the company's current status has granted it unprecedented control over its products, and the only proof that EA requires is the number on the bottom line.

So he means that they only have had full control since 2011.

 

[sea]

A former Bioware employee from... another forum said that that the console casual-direction is 100% Bioware's. Though one might say they're choosing this direction because they really need to make that paper and fast.

I can completely buy this. Even since games like Neverwinter Nights, BioWare have been pushing the "we're about making involving, engaging emotional experiences" angle more than anything else. Developing shooters and action games, at least according to the company line, is just as effective at doing that as developing RPGs.

And, in a way, they do have a point - you can have those sorts of experiences in just about any type of game, but if your goal is to impress players, why not aim for the largest possible market? Since around 2003-2004, BioWare really haven't been about RPGs, RPGs are just the vehicle they've used to deliver their particular trademark interactive story.

Considering how the company seems to be led (panel of writers and designers who have reign over others, call most of the shots, and have people like David Gaider on them), it's not surprising at all that a lot of the gameplay would be incidental. When they ask questions like "what kind of game do we want to make" they aren't talking about mechanics and systems, they're talking about universe, characters and storyline.

 

[Infinitron]

A former Bioware employee from... another forum said that that the console casual-direction is 100% Bioware's. Though one might say they're choosing this direction because they really need to make that paper and fast.

I can completely buy this. Even since games like KOTOR and Jade Empire, BioWare have been pushing the "we're about making involving, engaging emotional experiences" angle more than anything else. Developing shooters and action games, at least according to the company line, is just as effective at doing that as developing RPGs.

And, in a way, they do have a point - you can have those sorts of experiences in just about any type of game, but if your goal is to impress players, why not aim for the largest possible market? Since around 2003-2004, BioWare really haven't been about RPGs, RPGs are just the vehicle they've used to deliver their particular trademark interactive story.

Considering how the company seems to be led (panel of writers and designers who have reign over others, call most of the shots, and have people like David Gaider on them), it's not surprising at all that a lot of the gameplay would be incidental. When they ask questions like "what kind of game do we want to make" they aren't talking about mechanics and systems, they're talking about universe, characters and storyline.

Fixed. NWN is D&D goodness, despite the shit tech demo campaign they packaged with the original release.

 

[Roguey]

Considering how the company seems to be led (panel of writers and designers who have reign over others, call most of the shots, and have people like David Gaider on them), it's not surprising at all that a lot of the gameplay would be incidental. When they ask questions like "what kind of game do we want to make" they aren't talking about mechanics and systems, they're talking about universe, characters and storyline.

It's been explained to me that the leads only have control over their own subleads (so for example Laidlaw as lead designer can solve conflicts regarding the cinematic design, gameplay, level, and writer leads), and there are compromises everywhere with the project director having final say. For example, Gaider hates the shoeless elves but the art department pushed for it and Mark Darrah approved. Likewise he disagreed with the level design lead's decision to put so many blood mages in Kirkwall and Orsino as a mandatory boss, but Laidlaw backed the level designers.