Bioware = former god of singleplayer games hopes to...
...achieve success and save itself with multiplayer.
No. There is no chance in hell this'll work in their favor. Maybe short term. Maybe. But BW is toast imo. It was good knowing you.
Know that you'll be missed. (but hey! At least Obsidian's here! And there's always a slim off chance that docs will start a new game company)
Fixed that a bit, and I agree. Bioware's time is limited regardless of how Anthem does. The company has been gone for a while, and the name will eventually follow suit.
Bioware has no future regardless. This isn't Bioware. It's a Frankenstein's monster wearing Bioware's skin.
Yup! Current Bioware is just some slimy, EA-created misshapen horror disguising itself with the putrid, rotting flesh flayed from the real Bioware's corpse. Once it finally sloughs off and reveals the creature beneath for what it is, Bioware's name will cease to have value and follow the rest of the company in death.
AN' DERE AIN'T NO SUCH FING AS ENUFF DAKKA, YA GROT! Enuff'z more than ya got an' less than too much an' there ain't no such fing as too much dakka. Say dere is, and me Squiggoff'z eatin' tonight!
We are born of the blood. Made men by the blood. Undone by the blood. Our eyes are yet to open. FEAR THE OLD BLOOD.
The game costs too much to not have loot boxes for a first name title. Had the game released this year or last year, it might've had a chance, but by the time 2019 rolls around, the graphical quality of the game will have been out of date for over 5 years.
I'll be honest looking at the state of affairs. It's not actually as bad of a position for Anthem but it's also critical. While we like to keep bringing up similarities with Mass Effect and the like, the overall state of shooters especially on consoles is extremely weak. Bungie has made multiple blunders and the other alternative being Call of Duty doesn't help matters. There are going to be players who enjoy the nuanced story and progression of Dragon Age and Mass Effect 2 while the other side will be players looking for an action shooter to simply replace Destiny and avoid having to play more Call of Duty games.
While there are also other lovely FPS titles like Warframe that are arguably richer in storyline, the idea of Anthem being something Bungie failed to do appeals for players who want an alternative that at least avoids being worse than what they're used to. That in there is the key: they don't have to be realistically superior BUT they simply have to at least naildown a game that's exciting, doesn't lack lore and content and gives options gamers are excited about.
Now if the Bioware/EA relationship produces a rich game, that'd be awesome and equally a shock because that's not something we'd expect from them. But its not like we have all of these fantastic action shooter titles that feature multiplayer options as well. Likewise being a "great game" doesn't mean it'll be successful either. Square Enix produced and arguably impressive Lara Croft Tomb Raider that wasn't a full reboot hitting the right spots on lore, gameplay and storyline but it did rather depressing in sales based on what Square thought it would do given the positive reviews from all sides.
Again its not a popular opinion but you simply have to ask anyone whose played Destiny 1 & 2 and that feedback would typically be almost the feeling of Star Wars Battlefront 2. Sometimes hitting the bare minimum of player expectation just because they are desperate for an alternative is all that you really need at times and I really think Anthem is just that.
So this games as a service thing is going to be the way we go forward, huh?
Then I want you to wash my car, EA. Provide me that service, and I'll pay you. You can also sweep and mop my floors, I'll throw you a 20 for that.
If the service amounts to another attempt to pass lootbox progression by us consumers? You can get bent.
Games are a product. Not a service. Customer support for your game product is a service.
I most likely agree with your overall position but your anogly doesnt work. Washing your car and sweeping your floors is a ONE time service. If you want it monthly that requires upkeep in service cost.
And its funny that you end with "Games are a product not a service" Yet you then mention customer support, which has been sited by many game companies including Blizzard as the #1 cost "MMO style" games face post launch. Thats More than development and marketing by a large margin.
So for a game like Cuphead sure, that is a product. But you can not call Overwatch or PUBG just a product, they are services and players WANT them that way.
No more than your copy of Windows 10 is a service, not a product. Only difference is Microsoft isn't charging you for bug fixes and security updates.
Games are a product. A company can service their product, and provide customer service to customers who purchased the product, but it's still a product.
Is this how the "evolution" of the acronym MMORPG started??? I think it is.
Just say "Anthem will not have loot boxes" and its already a success.
Serious question: how much should the game cost to buy?
With no loot boxes and no subscription (think Wildstar, ESO, SWTOR etc.) the box price will need to cover all the development costs, marketing costs, running costs and provide a profit.
Will you expect follow on content? As DLC? If so how much should the DLC cost? How frequent?
It depends on what the final product offers, but as a standard I would say 60 USD box price... and no doubt there will be 70-80 USD 'special' editions.
As for on-going content, running costs, etc. that is covered by additional content releases (and on-going sales). Again, the cost depends on the content, but 15-25 USD every 3-6 months would be reasonable for significant content. An expansion could also be offered every 18-24 months for 40-60 USD.
And before we get onto 'too expensive'; remember, this is software, only the first copy actually costs X millions to make; making additional copies costs next to nothing; i.e. more copies sold past the breakeven point = vastly more profit (which also applies to additional content). <snip>
I have no problem with the concept of paying for games. Some do as you obviously appreciate.
What I would question is whether $60 standard is enough.
What EA will get per sale depends on what assumptions are made but - assuming the $60 does NOT include sales tax - then on a set of assumptions (see below) EA will get about $42 per sale in revenue.
To cover @DMKano 's figure of $250M EA will need to sell over 6M copies. Beforer profit?
And if the number is higher than $250M ..... Activision Blizzard warned shareholders Destiny might cost $500M then you are looking at over 13M sales. Admittedly the $500M included Bungee's costs although not AB's and (probably) running costs. Note: on-going running costs rise with higher sales numbers.
Either way: serious sales numbers. Destiny, The Divison, BF, ESO (eventually) etc. A lot of games don't generate such sales. Which is why you get crates.
So should they charge more - at what though do sales fall by more than the price increase?
I suspect a no loot box game would have to adopt what is often called a "luxury" pricing strategy. So a significant price hike - maybe $400 (before tax). A strategy design to make buyers feel both special and exclusive. With an aim of selling 1M copies (to recoup $250M). That would be a brave - or should that be stupid - decision?
Assumptions for above calc that gave $42. a) Tax not included - has to be added to the $60 - $80 price b) EA adopt a broad sales strategy to give best chnce of high sales number namely Origin, other retailers, boxed retail copies. c) Sales distribution assumed: 35% sold via Origin with 5% sales&transaction charge; 35% other online with 70% to EA; 30% retail with 25% to EA. d) 80% of sales @ $60, 20% sales @ $80)
This game being bad is already a foregone conclusion, isn't it? It's in an already oversaturated genre that doesn't garner interest from many.
And from a developer who has lost all respect and a publisher who is the most hated company on Earth.
Interesting to note that this source repeats the rumor that SWTOR is basically in maintenance mode as well. I still hope that BioWare Austin is working on a new Star Wars game, something a little more modern but still "MMO". There were rumors a year ago this was the case.
Try to be excellent to everyone you meet. You never know what someone else has seen or endured.
Bioware hasn't made a notably good game since 2010. What sad soul still has even an ounce of faith in them, especially with big daddy EA looming over their shoulder?
Where can I place a bet for them to fail this one too? Although I doubt I'll get a lot of money from winning the bet - nobody in their sane mind believe EA will let this one go without killing its gameplay with mandatory loot boxes.
Interesting to note that this source repeats the rumor that SWTOR is basically in maintenance mode as well. I still hope that BioWare Austin is working on a new Star Wars game, something a little more modern but still "MMO". There were rumors a year ago this was the case.
You know when you say still "MMO" we have no clue what you really mean!
Well if their whole philosophy revolves around game as a service, then any Star Wars in the works is definitely a multiplayer game.
And there's SWBF so we can be sure if they are working on a Star Wars game it ain't a match based lobby game.
They won't be doing a Star Wars anything like Destiny, because the bigger IP would crush their own new IP Anthem.
So, with a couple of shots of optimism, if there's a Star Wars game in the work, it is an MMO.
Or a collecting card game!
Constantine, The Console Poster
"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others may despise it, is the invention of good games and it cannot be done by men out of touch with their instinctive selves." - Carl Jung
Just say "Anthem will not have loot boxes" and its already a success.
Serious question: how much should the game cost to buy?
With no loot boxes and no subscription (think Wildstar, ESO, SWTOR etc.) the box price will need to cover all the development costs, marketing costs, running costs and provide a profit.
Will you expect follow on content? As DLC? If so how much should the DLC cost? How frequent?
It depends on what the final product offers, but as a standard I would say 60 USD box price... and no doubt there will be 70-80 USD 'special' editions.
As for on-going content, running costs, etc. that is covered by additional content releases (and on-going sales). Again, the cost depends on the content, but 15-25 USD every 3-6 months would be reasonable for significant content. An expansion could also be offered every 18-24 months for 40-60 USD.
And before we get onto 'too expensive'; remember, this is software, only the first copy actually costs X millions to make; making additional copies costs next to nothing; i.e. more copies sold past the breakeven point = vastly more profit (which also applies to additional content). <snip>
I have no problem with the concept of paying for games. Some do as you obviously appreciate.
What I would question is whether $60 standard is enough.
What EA will get per sale depends on what assumptions are made but - assuming the $60 does NOT include sales tax - then on a set of assumptions (see below) EA will get about $42 per sale in revenue.
To cover @DMKano 's figure of $250M EA will need to sell over 6M copies. Beforer profit?
And if the number is higher than $250M ..... Activision Blizzard warned shareholders Destiny might cost $500M then you are looking at over 13M sales. Admittedly the $500M included Bungee's costs although not AB's and (probably) running costs. Note: on-going running costs rise with higher sales numbers.
Either way: serious sales numbers. Destiny, The Divison, BF, ESO (eventually) etc. A lot of games don't generate such sales. Which is why you get crates.
So should they charge more - at what though do sales fall by more than the price increase?
I suspect a no loot box game would have to adopt what is often called a "luxury" pricing strategy. So a significant price hike - maybe $400 (before tax). A strategy design to make buyers feel both special and exclusive. With an aim of selling 1M copies (to recoup $250M). That would be a brave - or should that be stupid - decision?
Assumptions for above calc that gave $42. a) Tax not included - has to be added to the $60 - $80 price b) EA adopt a broad sales strategy to give best chnce of high sales number namely Origin, other retailers, boxed retail copies. c) Sales distribution assumed: 35% sold via Origin with 5% sales&transaction charge; 35% other online with 70% to EA; 30% retail with 25% to EA. d) 80% of sales @ $60, 20% sales @ $80)
Doing some napkin math I came to about the same numbers... however 6M isn't unachievable
e.g. Destiny apparently sold about 6.5M in it's first month, and The Division 'grossed over $330 million worldwide in its first five days of sale', so the market for multiplayer looter-shooters is clearly there.
As for the price point, yeah, I have no idea what adding an extra $10-$20 would do to the initial sales numbers (no one has really tried it AFAIK), but if they are really going for a 10-year-plan 'game-as-a-service' then some slightly lower week 1 sales shouldn't be a concern (e.g. it took ~3 years for WoW to hit 10 million subs), however killing your game due to an over emphasis on monetization
and loot-boxes should be (e.g. Battlefront 2 and Destiny 2).
Of course it's delayed. They planned on having jackshit for story, and just milking the mp in all likelihood. Now due to the recent backlash over the scummy direction EA is taking, and pushing Bioware into, the original plan has to revised somewhat. My expectations are low for this one though. Meh.
My SWTOR referral link for those wanting to give the game a try. (Newbies get a welcome package while returning players get a few account upgrades to help with their preferred status.)
Anthem is going to be well over 100mil project for EA, add marketing cost it will be probably 250+ mil
...
I dont see any option where Anthem doesnt end up having a cash shop to really push profits post launch when the retail box sales dip way down.
So while it would be amazing to not see lootboxes, i dont think its realistic ...
Whenever marketing costs are significantly more than development costs, an alarm bell should probably go off.
Loot Boxes are gambling, and they seriously suck. They are also a bald faced attempt at looting your wallet. I'm not to thrilled with a lot of the cash shops out there, but if they sell actual game stuff rather than slot machine spins, at least they aren't jacking you, even if their prices are stupid high. And of course, stuff in the cash shop shouldn't give you a competitive edge when going against other players, or be more or less necessary to do anything in the game. This includes such garbage that should be avoided like having it in the cash shop, or having to spend stupid amounts of time grinding to qualify or obtain either.
You should always be rewarded for spending time gaming, not simply making yourself available as a target for cash grab opportunities.
Companies in the past made plenty of games, without having to rely on digital shell games. There are ways to do it, and have a wonderful product. Speaking of which, it actually doesn't take a $100,000,000 to make a great game. If some company is trying to tell you it does, they're full of $@#^! Sure, they can spend that much, heck I can spend that much, but that doesn't mean it's necessary. They've gotten used to bloated budgets, and going the gold plated route for a lot of things. They need to be streamlined and pared back, even if for no other reason than their budgets are out of control. Case in point, Hellblade is reported to have been made on a budget of "way below $10 million".
Yes, Anthem is going to be a multiplayer game, and realistically if it's not a LAN game, that means it's going to need backend servers and stuff. Yes, those do cost money. That's why I'd not complain about a cash shop that plays fair (like I was talking about above) and of course, expansions not being free. DLC is basically just expansions, though usually only a fraction per, but add them up together and a several (or maybe a serious truck load of them) will equal a normal expansion, but digital only.
Besides, nobody should kid themselves. This move to loot boxes and other such actions isn't for your benefit, and it's not even about the game. It serves one singular purpose, bigger dividends for the stockholders. After all, do you think all those other games and companies over the decades failed to exist until someone first implemented in game gambling with real money, even if you're doing it with tokenized currency? Nope, they did just fine and made plenty of money. It's just that these days they're traded on the stock market and their focus, in far too many cases, has shifted from making great games to making their stockholders happy.
Maybe I'm a bit cynical, but I've been gaming since the first arcade game came out, and I've even worked at software companies. I remember when you could go and meet or call the devs and actually talk to them. Believe it or not, at one time EA was pretty cool and cared about their customers. Same with 2k Games and many others. I know that's long gone now, but I'm sure that the devs themselves want to make an awesome and fun game, but they have to do what their higher ups tell them, and those people usually aren't gamers.
To think that after the time of Dragon Age Origins I would deem Trion, Blizzard, Bioware, and Activision as terrible but love Ubisoft. Never would have saw this coming as a teen.
To think that after the time of Dragon Age Origins I would deem Trion, Blizzard, Bioware, and Activision as terrible but love Ubisoft. Never would have saw this coming as a teen.
I think a more measured approach is to take each game as it comes, I did that when you could rely on company brand, but it has been essential since the noughties.
If Anthem has 'slipped' its likely they are having to revisit the games 'game mechanics, progression, monetisation' etc. ME:Andromeda was an utter failure, that the game was abandoned without it being fixed is probably as much them admitting they can't fix it, Bioware needs a 'good' release for Anthem but i suspect that the demise of Destiny 2 has come as much of a shock to Bioware as it has to Bungle, factor in also EA's SW:BF2 and its likely that there is very little about Anthem that is not looking vulnerable.
First, Bioware have only ever been good at one thing - story. Their actual gameplay is typically pretty mediocre. Whether it be the clunky combat of KOTOR, the shit AI of the companions in DA, the shallow combat of SW:TOR or the dodgy mechanics of Mass Effect, gameplay has always been pretty rubbish.
Second, story does not translate well into the multiplayer format. I know some people will probably disagree with me, but we see this issue in every single MMO. A good story is linear, but translating that into a game means segregating your playerbase. That is the antithesis of multiplayer.
Third, this is EA, which means little to no innovation or risk taking. Anthem will almost certainly end up being a Destiny clone, just in a different setting with some minor gameplay tweaks. I also fully expect aggressive monetisation because that's what EA does. It may not come in the form of lootboxes, but expect overpriced DLCs and expensive convenience items and cosmetics in a cash shop.
I still think the game will make a profit, the loot shooter genre is still fairly new and popular and this game has a big budget, so the graphics and the world alone will be enough to shift millions of copies. But, it won't be a smash hit, it won't restore Bioware's reputation and it won't change our opinion of EA.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
They were sold/purchased, the original people decided they had had enough and left (and probably well off by this point) which means everyone else was left at the mercy of their new overlords.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Comments
Fixed that a bit, and I agree. Bioware's time is limited regardless of how Anthem does. The company has been gone for a while, and the name will eventually follow suit.
Yup! Current Bioware is just some slimy, EA-created misshapen horror disguising itself with the putrid, rotting flesh flayed from the real Bioware's corpse. Once it finally sloughs off and reveals the creature beneath for what it is, Bioware's name will cease to have value and follow the rest of the company in death.
AN' DERE AIN'T NO SUCH FING AS ENUFF DAKKA, YA GROT! Enuff'z more than ya got an' less than too much an' there ain't no such fing as too much dakka. Say dere is, and me Squiggoff'z eatin' tonight!
We are born of the blood. Made men by the blood. Undone by the blood. Our eyes are yet to open. FEAR THE OLD BLOOD.
#IStandWithVic
Get in bed with the devil.
While there are also other lovely FPS titles like Warframe that are arguably richer in storyline, the idea of Anthem being something Bungie failed to do appeals for players who want an alternative that at least avoids being worse than what they're used to. That in there is the key: they don't have to be realistically superior BUT they simply have to at least naildown a game that's exciting, doesn't lack lore and content and gives options gamers are excited about.
Now if the Bioware/EA relationship produces a rich game, that'd be awesome and equally a shock because that's not something we'd expect from them. But its not like we have all of these fantastic action shooter titles that feature multiplayer options as well. Likewise being a "great game" doesn't mean it'll be successful either. Square Enix produced and arguably impressive Lara Croft Tomb Raider that wasn't a full reboot hitting the right spots on lore, gameplay and storyline but it did rather depressing in sales based on what Square thought it would do given the positive reviews from all sides.
Again its not a popular opinion but you simply have to ask anyone whose played Destiny 1 & 2 and that feedback would typically be almost the feeling of Star Wars Battlefront 2. Sometimes hitting the bare minimum of player expectation just because they are desperate for an alternative is all that you really need at times and I really think Anthem is just that.
Games are a product. A company can service their product, and provide customer service to customers who purchased the product, but it's still a product.
Is this how the "evolution" of the acronym MMORPG started??? I think it is.
What I would question is whether $60 standard is enough.
What EA will get per sale depends on what assumptions are made but - assuming the $60 does NOT include sales tax - then on a set of assumptions (see below) EA will get about $42 per sale in revenue.
To cover @DMKano 's figure of $250M EA will need to sell over 6M copies. Beforer profit?
And if the number is higher than $250M ..... Activision Blizzard warned shareholders Destiny might cost $500M then you are looking at over 13M sales. Admittedly the $500M included Bungee's costs although not AB's and (probably) running costs. Note: on-going running costs rise with higher sales numbers.
Either way: serious sales numbers. Destiny, The Divison, BF, ESO (eventually) etc. A lot of games don't generate such sales. Which is why you get crates.
So should they charge more - at what though do sales fall by more than the price increase?
I suspect a no loot box game would have to adopt what is often called a "luxury" pricing strategy. So a significant price hike - maybe $400 (before tax). A strategy design to make buyers feel both special and exclusive. With an aim of selling 1M copies (to recoup $250M). That would be a brave - or should that be stupid - decision?
Assumptions for above calc that gave $42.
a) Tax not included - has to be added to the $60 - $80 price
b) EA adopt a broad sales strategy to give best chnce of high sales number namely Origin, other retailers, boxed retail copies.
c) Sales distribution assumed: 35% sold via Origin with 5% sales&transaction charge; 35% other online with 70% to EA; 30% retail with 25% to EA.
d) 80% of sales @ $60, 20% sales @ $80)
Also, too bad Dragon Age will fall into the "games as a service" nonsense too.
Try to be excellent to everyone you meet. You never know what someone else has seen or endured.
My Review Manifesto
Follow me on Twitter if you dare.
Thank you for your time!
Well if their whole philosophy revolves around game as a service, then any Star Wars in the works is definitely a multiplayer game.
And there's SWBF so we can be sure if they are working on a Star Wars game it ain't a match based lobby game.
They won't be doing a Star Wars anything like Destiny, because the bigger IP would crush their own new IP Anthem.
So, with a couple of shots of optimism, if there's a Star Wars game in the work, it is an MMO.
Or a collecting card game!
Doing some napkin math I came to about the same numbers... however 6M isn't unachievable e.g. Destiny apparently sold about 6.5M in it's first month, and The Division 'grossed over $330 million worldwide in its first five days of sale', so the market for multiplayer looter-shooters is clearly there.
As for the price point, yeah, I have no idea what adding an extra $10-$20 would do to the initial sales numbers (no one has really tried it AFAIK), but if they are really going for a 10-year-plan 'game-as-a-service' then some slightly lower week 1 sales shouldn't be a concern (e.g. it took ~3 years for WoW to hit 10 million subs), however killing your game due to an over emphasis on monetization and loot-boxes should be (e.g. Battlefront 2 and Destiny 2).
My SWTOR referral link for those wanting to give the game a try. (Newbies get a welcome package while returning players get a few account upgrades to help with their preferred status.)
https://www.ashesofcreation.com/ref/Callaron/
Whenever marketing costs are significantly more than development costs, an alarm bell should probably go off.
Loot Boxes are gambling, and they seriously suck. They are also a bald faced attempt at looting your wallet. I'm not to thrilled with a lot of the cash shops out there, but if they sell actual game stuff rather than slot machine spins, at least they aren't jacking you, even if their prices are stupid high. And of course, stuff in the cash shop shouldn't give you a competitive edge when going against other players, or be more or less necessary to do anything in the game. This includes such garbage that should be avoided like having it in the cash shop, or having to spend stupid amounts of time grinding to qualify or obtain either.
You should always be rewarded for spending time gaming, not simply making yourself available as a target for cash grab opportunities.
Companies in the past made plenty of games, without having to rely on digital shell games. There are ways to do it, and have a wonderful product. Speaking of which, it actually doesn't take a $100,000,000 to make a great game. If some company is trying to tell you it does, they're full of $@#^! Sure, they can spend that much, heck I can spend that much, but that doesn't mean it's necessary. They've gotten used to bloated budgets, and going the gold plated route for a lot of things. They need to be streamlined and pared back, even if for no other reason than their budgets are out of control. Case in point, Hellblade is reported to have been made on a budget of "way below $10 million".
Yes, Anthem is going to be a multiplayer game, and realistically if it's not a LAN game, that means it's going to need backend servers and stuff. Yes, those do cost money. That's why I'd not complain about a cash shop that plays fair (like I was talking about above) and of course, expansions not being free. DLC is basically just expansions, though usually only a fraction per, but add them up together and a several (or maybe a serious truck load of them) will equal a normal expansion, but digital only.
Besides, nobody should kid themselves. This move to loot boxes and other such actions isn't for your benefit, and it's not even about the game. It serves one singular purpose, bigger dividends for the stockholders. After all, do you think all those other games and companies over the decades failed to exist until someone first implemented in game gambling with real money, even if you're doing it with tokenized currency? Nope, they did just fine and made plenty of money. It's just that these days they're traded on the stock market and their focus, in far too many cases, has shifted from making great games to making their stockholders happy.
Maybe I'm a bit cynical, but I've been gaming since the first arcade game came out, and I've even worked at software companies. I remember when you could go and meet or call the devs and actually talk to them. Believe it or not, at one time EA was pretty cool and cared about their customers. Same with 2k Games and many others. I know that's long gone now, but I'm sure that the devs themselves want to make an awesome and fun game, but they have to do what their higher ups tell them, and those people usually aren't gamers.
Lost my mind, now trying to lose yours...
I think a more measured approach is to take each game as it comes, I did that when you could rely on company brand, but it has been essential since the noughties.
First, Bioware have only ever been good at one thing - story. Their actual gameplay is typically pretty mediocre. Whether it be the clunky combat of KOTOR, the shit AI of the companions in DA, the shallow combat of SW:TOR or the dodgy mechanics of Mass Effect, gameplay has always been pretty rubbish.
Second, story does not translate well into the multiplayer format. I know some people will probably disagree with me, but we see this issue in every single MMO. A good story is linear, but translating that into a game means segregating your playerbase. That is the antithesis of multiplayer.
Third, this is EA, which means little to no innovation or risk taking. Anthem will almost certainly end up being a Destiny clone, just in a different setting with some minor gameplay tweaks. I also fully expect aggressive monetisation because that's what EA does. It may not come in the form of lootboxes, but expect overpriced DLCs and expensive convenience items and cosmetics in a cash shop.
I still think the game will make a profit, the loot shooter genre is still fairly new and popular and this game has a big budget, so the graphics and the world alone will be enough to shift millions of copies. But, it won't be a smash hit, it won't restore Bioware's reputation and it won't change our opinion of EA.
Yeah... "If master will not be pleased he will scrap me." That's how I read it.
They were sold/purchased, the original people decided they had had enough and left (and probably well off by this point) which means everyone else was left at the mercy of their new overlords.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo