Are the rumors actually true about Miranda?

---

@SofaJockeyUK wrote:
I do wonder where you get your assumptions from.

EA = BioWare.

BioWare = EA.

BioWare is an operating division not a team of galley slaves.

The development teams under their own creative leadership make the games as part of EA.

If a game is good or not so good, that's on the team that made it, not some shadowy corporate puppet play.

All of this is is naive thoughts the one with the money is the one in charge if Bioware has all the money they need to make the game and require 0 investors then they are fully in charge but if Bioware require funding from EA then EA has power to made demands

"If a game is good or not so good, that's on the team that made it, not some shadowy corporate puppet play."

this depends on many things look how it went with Troika games they had a good game to be released and needed more time to polish it up they didnt get it was forced to release and it flopped now after a decade of community bug fixes that game is a classic

this is one example out of many im not going to go into details.

---

@budzai wrote:BW isn't going the way Blizzard went, because they are there for more than a decade now.
their last good game was DA:O. After that they pumped out total mediocre and bad games.

---

this is just you're opinion i actually liked all of the dragon age games including 2 and inquisition i even liked Andromeda even tho it was not nearly as good as the older games this is true but i wouldn't call them mediocre

@budzaibut you should only speak for you're self and shouldn't put words in other people's mouths even if you have statistics to back it up ;D

again like i said i did enjoy them even tho they were not as good as the older games but it is funny when you think about it that Bioware was bought in 2008 and last good / decent games they made was around that time + - 2 years and the more time went the worse they became.

Coincident? i vote no

There is no denying that early 2000 was the golden era of Bioware tho


Even tho this is interesting talk it is getting off topic so im dropping this here 🙂

---

@Naala wrote:

---

@SofaJockeyUK wrote:
I do wonder where you get your assumptions from.

EA = BioWare.

BioWare = EA.

BioWare is an operating division not a team of galley slaves.

The development teams under their own creative leadership make the games as part of EA.

If a game is good or not so good, that's on the team that made it, not some shadowy corporate puppet play.

---

All of this is is naive thoughts the one with the money is the one in charge if Bioware has all the money they need to make the game and require 0 investors then they are fully in charge but if Bioware require funding from EA then EA has power to made demands

"If a game is good or not so good, that's on the team that made it, not some shadowy corporate puppet play."

this depends on many things look how it went with Troika games they had a good game to be released and needed more time to polish it up they didnt get it was forced to release and it flopped now after a decade of community bug fixes that game is a classic

this is one example out of many im not going to go into details.

---

Bioware isn't an independent company looking around for money to make games, or someone to publish them, but instead Bioware is 100% OWNED by EA.  EA as a company has sub-companies they own that make games for them....so EA tells Bioware you have XXX amount of money and time to make a game, get with it.    What Bioware does with that money, is on Bioware and the crew there.   So, don't think in anyway that Bioware is independent of EA or doesn't need EA.....Bioware is EA and EA is Bioware.

@mcsupersporti never said they are independent i said he who holds the money is in charge which would be EA unless Bioware has their own money you even said the same thing the part about investors are still true but not in this situation

Also its good to see you don't read all my posts i know they were bought i said that in my last post which you chose to ignore ;D

@Sky2k5Same didnt want a long discussion about it either its just sad that so many dont seem to get how corporate's work EA's only intention is to make money that is what corporate's do.  IF Bioware and most other game devs would make a choice that would risk loosing money say a racist game then the investors and or owners (in this case EA) can go in and pull the plug on those decisions and remove it in this case Mirand's * could be seen as sexism there fore someone voted to remove it wheter it was EA or Bioware i dont know and dont really care it is censurship and that should not be accepted.

But making games these days is a risky business, i do miss old school games when they could do damn near anything they wanted.

i really do hope bioware stand up for them self IF this censure decision comes from EA which it very well could but if the decision came from Bioware then like i said previously it dont look good for future bioware games

@Naala @Sky2k5 do you reckon it would work if bioware just changed whatever they thought was best in ME then turned off all social media for one week after launching the game? pretend all criticism doesnt exist and return fresh a week later to patch bugs?