#1 Posted by Jost1 (2077 posts) -

Now that EA is renaming everything Bioware and trying to trick people into thinking Generals 2 is a Bioware game, what other "Bioware" games can we look forward to in the near future?

Personally I can't wait for Bioware's Peggle 2 and Bioware's The Sims Social! And then in 2013, Bioware's Madden 14.

Bioware!

#2 Posted by Fruitcocoa (478 posts) -

Yeah, about that. I was shocked to find out that it was a Victory Games title. While I don't think that this means that the game is not as good as a true BioWare RPG would've been, it seems a bit odd.

#3 Posted by Jost1 (2077 posts) -

The game could be good or not, who knows! I just think slapping Bioware on a game is weird and I don't care for it. People associate "Bioware" with a certain type of game, EA KNOWS that and they're trying to capitalize on it in a dirty way.

#4 Posted by TobbRobb (4579 posts) -

Yup, it's dirty, but not unexpected. Bioware is a big name.

#5 Posted by jetsetwillie (857 posts) -

we can't.

the internet has decided that Bioware are incapable of working on more than 1 game. so from now on we must hate Bioware for not being exactly when we expect them to be.

thats right isn't it, i maybe a little rusty on my internet hating rules.

#6 Posted by BeachThunder (11695 posts) -

Biofield: Bio Company 3.

#7 Edited by MattyFTM (14342 posts) -

I'm looking forward to the Bioware: Origin digital distribution platform. With all of the bad blood the gaming community has towards Origin, they have to do something to win back people. Slapping a Bioware logo on it is the obvious course of action.

EA's marketing department should hire me. Seriously!!! I am available EA, if you're reading this.

Moderator
#8 Edited by Jost1 (2077 posts) -

@jetsetwillie said:

we can't.

the internet has decided that Bioware are incapable of working on more than 1 game. so from now on we must hate Bioware for not being exactly when we expect them to be.

thats right isn't it, i maybe a little rusty on my internet hating rules.

Come on dude.

First of all the point of the joke is that this isn't Bioware working on this game. Secondl, if you can't see that it's a TINY bit shady to rename a whole bunch of studios "Bioware" because people associate that name with quality, and if you can't even tolerate jokes about it, then I don't know what to tell you. Even Jeff talks about it in the latest Bombcast.

I wasn't hating, I just think it's predictable and disappointing and more than a little ridiculous. Let's see if it pays off for them.

If you want unreasonable internet hatred check out the reactions to Metal Gear Rising.

#9 Posted by Village_Guy (2492 posts) -

It is a bit shady that they didn't really make it clear that it was Bioware Victory and not Bioware making the game. But yeah, I can't wait for EA renaming itself Bioware: EA.

#10 Edited by Jost1 (2077 posts) -

Biojewelled 4

edit: I'm Commander Shepard and this is my favourite social game on facebook! wink wink buy more in-game currency ;)

#11 Edited by MattyFTM (14342 posts) -

@Village_Guy said:

It is a bit shady that they didn't really make it clear that it was Bioware Victory and not Bioware making the game. But yeah, I can't wait for EA renaming itself Bioware: EA.

No, EA did make that clear. In their press release it clearly stated "Command & Conquer Generals 2 is being developed by a new BioWare studio, BioWare Victory, and is coming exclusively to the PC in 2013." (source). What happened was game journalists reported it shoddily and didn't mention that it was a rebranded Victory developing it, not one of the more established BioWare studios. Probably because they thought they'd get more page views from people thinking "What the hell? Why are BioWare developing an RTS" than they would have done if they had explained the development studio situation better.

Moderator
#12 Posted by Jost1 (2077 posts) -

@MattyFTM said:

@Village_Guy said:

It is a bit shady that they didn't really make it clear that it was Bioware Victory and not Bioware making the game. But yeah, I can't wait for EA renaming itself Bioware: EA.

No, EA did make that clear. In their press release it clearly stated "Command & Conquer Generals 2 is being developed by a new BioWare studio, BioWare Victory, and is coming exclusively to the PC in 2013." (source). What happened was game journalists reported it shoddily and didn't mention that it was a rebranded Victory developing it, not one of the more established BioWare studios. Probably because they thought they'd get more page views from people thinking "What the hell? Why are BioWare developing an RTS" than they would have done if they had explained the development studio situation better.

They do explain it but even so, there is absolutely no denying they are diluting the name on purpose. To what end, we'll find out I guess. I thought Jeff's thoughts on it on the new Bombcast were absolutely spot on.

#13 Posted by jetsetwillie (857 posts) -

@Jost1 said:

@jetsetwillie said:

we can't.

the internet has decided that Bioware are incapable of working on more than 1 game. so from now on we must hate Bioware for not being exactly when we expect them to be.

thats right isn't it, i maybe a little rusty on my internet hating rules.

Come on dude.

First of all the point of the joke is that this isn't Bioware working on this game. Secondl, if you can't see that it's a TINY bit shady to rename a whole bunch of studios "Bioware" because people associate that name with quality, and if you can't even tolerate jokes about it, then I don't know what to tell you. Even Jeff talks about it in the latest Bombcast.

I wasn't hating, I just think it's predictable and disappointing and more than a little ridiculous. Let's see if it pays off for them.

If you want unreasonable internet hatred check out the reactions to Metal Gear Rising.

sorry i just grow tired of the internets overreaction about ANYTHING that doesn't exactly fit in with its expected ideal.

there is nothing shady about this. companies rename and restructure all the time.

give it a few months and the hate towards bioware/EA will eclipse the hate that activision attracted. for no real reason

#14 Posted by bwmcmaste (837 posts) -

@Jost1 said:

Now that EA is renaming everything Bioware and trying to trick people into thinking Generals 2 is a Bioware game,

Wait, what happened to Westwood studios?

Son of a bitch!

#15 Posted by MattyFTM (14342 posts) -

@Jost1 said:

@MattyFTM said:

@Village_Guy said:

It is a bit shady that they didn't really make it clear that it was Bioware Victory and not Bioware making the game. But yeah, I can't wait for EA renaming itself Bioware: EA.

No, EA did make that clear. In their press release it clearly stated "Command & Conquer Generals 2 is being developed by a new BioWare studio, BioWare Victory, and is coming exclusively to the PC in 2013." (source). What happened was game journalists reported it shoddily and didn't mention that it was a rebranded Victory developing it, not one of the more established BioWare studios. Probably because they thought they'd get more page views from people thinking "What the hell? Why are BioWare developing an RTS" than they would have done if they had explained the development studio situation better.

They do explain it but even so, there is absolutely no denying they are diluting the name on purpose. To what end, we'll find out I guess. I thought Jeff's thoughts on it on the new Bombcast were absolutely spot on.

Of course. They're trying to gain favour by using the well liked BioWare branding rather than simply using the somewhat negatively viewed EA branding. It would be like Activision putting more studio's under the Blizzard banner and selling them as Blizzard games. My point was simply that they did make it clear that BioWare Victory was developing it.

Moderator
#16 Posted by Jost1 (2077 posts) -

@bwmcmaste said:

@Jost1 said:

Now that EA is renaming everything Bioware and trying to trick people into thinking Generals 2 is a Bioware game,

Wait, what happened to Westwood studios?

Son of a bitch!

Hahaha good one!

Now I'm sad :(

How quickly people forget the purges of the late 90s.

#17 Posted by Jost1 (2077 posts) -

@jetsetwillie said:

sorry i just grow tired of the internets overreaction about ANYTHING that doesn't exactly fit in with its expected ideal.

there is nothing shady about this. companies rename and restructure all the time.

give it a few months and the hate towards bioware/EA will eclipse the hate that activision attracted. for no real reason

On the contrary, there are very real reasons to dislike ALL the major publishers.

#18 Posted by shulinchung (180 posts) -

I am still waiting for Blizzard Call of Duty. :P

#19 Posted by jetsetwillie (857 posts) -

@Jost1 said:

@jetsetwillie said:

sorry i just grow tired of the internets overreaction about ANYTHING that doesn't exactly fit in with its expected ideal.

there is nothing shady about this. companies rename and restructure all the time.

give it a few months and the hate towards bioware/EA will eclipse the hate that activision attracted. for no real reason

On the contrary, there are very real reasons to dislike ALL the major publishers.

there are also very real reasons to like ALL of them too.

#20 Posted by Jost1 (2077 posts) -

@jetsetwillie said:

@Jost1 said:

@jetsetwillie said:

sorry i just grow tired of the internets overreaction about ANYTHING that doesn't exactly fit in with its expected ideal.

there is nothing shady about this. companies rename and restructure all the time.

give it a few months and the hate towards bioware/EA will eclipse the hate that activision attracted. for no real reason

On the contrary, there are very real reasons to dislike ALL the major publishers.

there are also very real reasons to like ALL of them too.

Of course, they all put out games that I love! Doesn't mean I have to approve of everything they do :)

#21 Posted by jetsetwillie (857 posts) -

@Jost1 said:

@jetsetwillie said:

@Jost1 said:

@jetsetwillie said:

sorry i just grow tired of the internets overreaction about ANYTHING that doesn't exactly fit in with its expected ideal.

there is nothing shady about this. companies rename and restructure all the time.

give it a few months and the hate towards bioware/EA will eclipse the hate that activision attracted. for no real reason

On the contrary, there are very real reasons to dislike ALL the major publishers.

there are also very real reasons to like ALL of them too.

Of course, they all put out games that I love! Doesn't mean I have to approve of everything they do :)

so just explain to me again then why this is bad.

#22 Posted by Brodehouse (9585 posts) -

Or maybe it's called BioWare because the doctors are in charge.

#23 Edited by Jost1 (2077 posts) -

@jetsetwillie said:

so just explain to me again then why this is bad.

Because they're using the goodwill people have towards the "Bioware" brand in a slightly misleading way. Of course we all know what's going on but most consumers probably won't. So it sets the precedent that pretty much anything can be a Bioware game, and the brand name will probably end up losing some or all of what it used to stand for. Then they'll move on to the next thing. I don't care for it, personally.

Having a developer name MEAN something to people is a rare thing and maybe they should have thought of that before they decided to spread it so thin.

In a way it's like the "Tom Clancy" brand. That name meant something to certain people (not necessarily me, but). Over the years, oversaturation has stripped that name of any meaning and goodwill it once had.

Before you think I have some emotional investment in this, I don't really. I just don't like to see marketing gimmicks and rebranding slowly destroy strong brands.

#24 Edited by Sooty (8082 posts) -

At the rate BioWare is going the next games they release will have an option to be played automatically with no human interaction required, judging from those leaked Mass Effect 3 screenshots.

I don't know what to feel about that company right now, I really hope Mass Effect 3 is good, the rumours (with the story spoilers) seemed extremely negative, I'm telling myself they are indeed just rumours.

#25 Posted by Jost1 (2077 posts) -

@Sooty said:

At the rate BioWare is going the next games they release will have an option to be played automatically with no human interaction required, judging from those leaked Mass Effect 3 screenshots.

I don't know what to feel about that company right now, I really hope Mass Effect 3 is good, the rumours (with the story spoilers) seemed extremely negative, I'm telling myself they are indeed just rumours.

Mass Effect 3 will probably be pretty damn great, it's got the top talent working on it. :) I'll be extremely surprised if they released a sub-par product!

#26 Posted by ProfessorEss (7280 posts) -
@Brodehouse said:
Or maybe it's called BioWare because the doctors are in charge.
 I've heard that neither the doctors nor anyone from the Edmonton studio are involved.  
 
Shady, not shady? I don't know but I do wonder how long it will take for BioWare's name to lose the cachet it has (once had) if they go overboard with putting their name on everything.
#27 Posted by Brodehouse (9585 posts) -
@ProfessorEss
@Brodehouse said:
Or maybe it's called BioWare because the doctors are in charge.
 I've heard that neither the doctors nor anyone from the Edmonton studio are involved.  
 
Shady, not shady? I don't know but I do wonder how long it will take for BioWare's name to lose the cachet it has (once had) if they go overboard with putting their name on everything.
The doctors are ultimately responsible for anything with the BioWare name on it. They're to BioWare what Peter Moore was to EA Sports the last few years. I didn't say Casey Hudson or Laidlaw are running Victory.

I just wonder if people would be this angry if it was any other company. It would be like getting mad that 2K was confusing people with all their 2K studios.
#28 Posted by Brodehouse (9585 posts) -

Actually now that I think about it, this is the exact same thing Rockstar did. No one got mad that Red Dead Redemption was developed by San Diego, no one got mad that Max Payne is being developed by Vancouver. Are all the BioWare haters going to head to the Rockstar page next and complain they're trying to make people think these games are developed by North?

#29 Posted by phrosnite (3518 posts) -

In 2 years Bioware will be half of EA :)

#30 Posted by Jost1 (2077 posts) -

@Brodehouse said:

Actually now that I think about it, this is the exact same thing Rockstar did. No one got mad that Red Dead Redemption was developed by San Diego, no one got mad that Max Payne is being developed by Vancouver. Are all the BioWare haters going to head to the Rockstar page next and complain they're trying to make people think these games are developed by North?

Are people "Bioware haters" for questioning whether they're perhaps spreading the label too thin? Why use that kind of term?

Also NO QUESTION that the same thing is being done with the Rockstar name. I still don't think it's a good idea.

But I dislike being lumped in with "haters" for criticizing and making fun of stupid corporate rebranding.

#31 Posted by AndrewB (7491 posts) -

I think it's funny that the Bioware name should hold some kind of holy insta-buy for anyone in the first place. But Bioware hasn't been "Bioware" for a long time now.

It's kind of like when people talk about all the amazing games that Valve have made recently. That kind of depends on what you definition of the company is. I still think of Turtle Rock being the developers of Left 4 Dead, and they also make a ton of content for Valve's other games. It took Valve a long time to finally officially acquire them.

#32 Posted by Jost1 (2077 posts) -

@AndrewB said:

I think it's funny that the Bioware name should hold some kind of holy insta-buy for anyone in the first place. But Bioware hasn't been "Bioware" for a long time now.

Yeah it doesn't mean much to me. Mass Effect is the only series of theirs that I've truly LOVED. But to a lot of people this brand means a lot.

So it's interesting to discuss this kind of thing regardless. I don't need huge emotional investment to discuss a given topic.

#33 Posted by jetsetwillie (857 posts) -

@Jost1 said:

@Brodehouse said:

Actually now that I think about it, this is the exact same thing Rockstar did. No one got mad that Red Dead Redemption was developed by San Diego, no one got mad that Max Payne is being developed by Vancouver. Are all the BioWare haters going to head to the Rockstar page next and complain they're trying to make people think these games are developed by North?

Are people "Bioware haters" for questioning whether they're perhaps spreading the label too thin? Why use that kind of term?

Also NO QUESTION that the same thing is being done with the Rockstar name. I still don't think it's a good idea.

But I dislike being lumped in with "haters" for criticizing and making fun of stupid corporate rebranding.

i think its just because haters usually overreact and base their hate on nothing more than conjecture and that exactly what you have done here. it might not be hate but it is a fatuous overreaction.

#34 Edited by ProfessorEss (7280 posts) -

@Brodehouse said:

The doctors are ultimately responsible for anything with the BioWare name on it. They're to BioWare what Peter Moore was to EA Sports the last few years. I didn't say Casey Hudson or Laidlaw are running Victory. I just wonder if people would be this angry if it was any other company. It would be like getting mad that 2K was confusing people with all their 2K studios.

I don't really care one way or another personally. I play games on a game to game basis and try not to think too much about who's names are in the credits or who's logo is on the box.

I ain't no hater neither. I have nothing but the utmost respect for what BioWare's done for videogames over the last (almost) twenty years.

#35 Posted by Jost1 (2077 posts) -

@jetsetwillie said:

@Jost1 said:

@Brodehouse said:

Actually now that I think about it, this is the exact same thing Rockstar did. No one got mad that Red Dead Redemption was developed by San Diego, no one got mad that Max Payne is being developed by Vancouver. Are all the BioWare haters going to head to the Rockstar page next and complain they're trying to make people think these games are developed by North?

Are people "Bioware haters" for questioning whether they're perhaps spreading the label too thin? Why use that kind of term?

Also NO QUESTION that the same thing is being done with the Rockstar name. I still don't think it's a good idea.

But I dislike being lumped in with "haters" for criticizing and making fun of stupid corporate rebranding.

i think its just because haters usually overreact and base their hate on nothing more than conjecture and that exactly what you have done here. it might not be hate but it is a fatuous overreaction.

What would be an appropriate reaction? Not talking about it whatsoever? Not making a single joke? :) Can't we have a little fun at a major publisher's expense? A publisher with a track record of buying and assimilating studios? All I have been saying is that I feel they're probably damaging the brand, and it's probably going to have the opposite effect of what they want, in the long run. And I think corporate branding stuff is always pretty silly in general.

#36 Posted by MentalDisruption (1618 posts) -

This was probably Bioware's plan from the beginning. Establish a foothold within EA and slowly take over the host from the inside. Like a virus. Why they would want control over EA is beyond me, but expect Bioware: EA soon enough.

(kidding, of course)

#37 Posted by Stealthmaster86 (631 posts) -

From what little I played of it I really enjoyed MDK2. I would not mind another game from that series.

#38 Posted by Vodun (2370 posts) -

@Jost1 said:

Of course we all know what's going on

God I love that, makes you sound so...humble.

No one here knows fuck all about what their reasoning behind this is any more than a "regular consumer". Your perceived insight merely lends you more of an opportunity to jump to conclusions. For all we know it might be BioWare themselves making the push.

#39 Posted by Jost1 (2077 posts) -

@Vodun said:

@Jost1 said:

Of course we all know what's going on

God I love that, makes you sound so...humble.

No one here knows fuck all about what their reasoning behind this is any more than a "regular consumer". Your perceived insight merely lends you more of an opportunity to jump to conclusions. For all we know it might be BioWare themselves making the push.

Allright, could have phrased that differently but what I mean is - of course WE know that "Bioware" isn't necessarily old Bioware now that a bunch of studios have that name. I didn't imply that I know the full behind the scenes story on this. I'm not an industry expert. I just like to make fun of it but apparently that didn't come across whatsoever in my original post. Internet I guess.

#40 Posted by Funkydupe (3311 posts) -

Bioshock 3! ...

Online
#41 Posted by Dany (7887 posts) -

I'm unfamiliar with the CC game but was Victory Studios already a studio before Bioware had it under it? Is that why the discussion on the podcast went on so long?

#42 Posted by Little_Socrates (5675 posts) -

I'm excited for BioBlitz, Bioware's Alice, BioWare 2142, and BioWare Presents Dead Space 3.

I also think it's funny, and I agree that there are major reasons to dislike most of the major publishers. Still can't find a reason to hate on Atlus, though!