Also Cadillac is nowhere near being competitive so they don't need performance. Their race is a success when both cars go the distance, which so far has happened only 6 times the entire season. What Cadillac needs is experience and that's where both Perez and Bottas have Ocon beat. Not just in how long they've been in F1 but also by knowing how a championship winning team operates.

There's no place for Ocon now and (unless both Bottas and Perez retire) there's no place in the future. The moment Cadillac starts to perform they're going to pick up a rookie driver not someone past their prime.

They also worked under the belief of "Bioware magic" (literally what they internally called it) instead of actually having a plan on how to make a game. Their magic was always going to run out.

It's also a question of cost. You can probably take the layout off the modern house and have the facade look like the housing of old. But building houses is expensive so costs need to be cut where it can, thus very minimalist facades. If you live in your own house would you pay 50k or 100k just to have your house look a certain way from the outside? I know I wouldn't. I could barely afford the house.

Okay, so if any proof or evidence came out that proves that the BioWare leadership or employees themselves did something bad or self destructive…

Have you read Jason Schreier's article on how Anthem went wrong? Excluding the technical problems from the Frostbite engine everything wrong with Anthem was on Bioware. They couldn't lock down what the scope of the game was, they couldn't agree on the story and the studio functioned on what they called “BioWare magic.” which is a hope that the game will come together at the end. And until the very end the message from the leadership was that "Bioware magic will come and everything will work out". That Bioware magic had been around since at least the very first Mass Effect game (possibly sooner, I don't remember how long that had been going on).

I'll also link this article for a quote.

Darrah says he doesn't feel like he had a choice, however, because "EA was very good at making Bioware feel like things were very dire." Though, he points to the fact that Hudson's replacement as Bioware's general manager, Gary McKay, was able to delay Dragon Age: Veilguard through multiple financial years. "That tells me either he's magic, which is possible, or it was never quite as 'gun to our head' as we thought it was," Darrah says.

To me that indicates the people leading the studio didn't know how to communicate with EA. I've worked in corporate for years. The people at the top are so disconnected from the actual work it's common for them to set unreasonable expectations. It's part of the job of the people between the top and the people actually doing the job to temper the expectations from the people of the top so they could allocate resources (be it people, time or anything else) so the people actually doing the job can do their job. Whoever was the leadership at Bioware (even if they're appointed by EA, they're still a part of Bioware) failed at their job to temper the expectations from EA. As the quote indicates McKay got that part of the job, which is why Veilguard got the delays it needed even though it didn't help because they were constantly scrambling to for a vision they couldn't realize.

If you want some super early hype there's a spiritual successor to KOTOR in works. It's called Fate of the Old Republic and the game director for FOTOR is Casey Hudson, the director of KOTOR (and also the Mass Effect trilogy). So there's a chance it might actually be good.

I think you might be using the wrong word here. EA never pushed Bioware to make MMOs. Bioware made one MMO, SWTOR, and that was a financial success. As far as I know no other Bioware game had been an MMO after EA bought them. Where Bioware struggled was with making live-service multiplayer games and there's some argument that the unrealistic revenue expectations from EA forced Bioware to go down that route but in the end it was Bioware who suggested, back in 2012, that Anthem would be a live-service style game. How Veilguard ended up going multiplayer I'm not familiar with, but even there Bioware could go back to the single player experience, which still flopped.

I do hope that was a deliberate jab at Bungie. Because that's exactly what Bungie did when they were independent and the reason they got bought out by Sony was because they were spiraling into their demise. Even now I think if Bungie goes under the blame lies with Bungie and not Sony. With that in mind I think it would be illogical to see two different studios go down the same path and then blame one studio but excuse the other studio.

Yeah, because EA gave Bioware a chance to bounce back, in fact multiple chances. You could say EA killed the Bioware of old which the talent leaving the studio, but the new Bioware could've bounced back. They had everything they needed to succeed. A credible studio name that people trusted and a bunch of beloved IPs that people would give a chance. They even had EA giving them more than one shot to not fail (which is more than most EA studios get) and also plenty of time to get it right. All Bioware had to do was put out a good game and they simply couldn't.

So let me ask in reverse. Let's say Bioware was indepedent. What would Bioware have to fuck up for you to say its their fault for going under? Because to me they ticked all those boxes already. Had it been any other studio they'd already be dead and forgotten.

I wouldn't be that worried about Vance, it's hard to find a less charismatic politician. Just a few days ago there was a grieving husband asking for some comfort and assurance that his wife didn't die in vain in the Iran war, that something will be done to prevent it from happening to anyone else. It's a real low hanging fruit for any politician. You just offer condolences, say you'll look into this (Vance could even collect some credibility by saying this is one of the reasons why he didn't want the war in Iran in the first place) and then thank them for their service (the husband was also in the military).

And it's clear Vance has been politically trained because he understood what he was supposed to do, but the way he went about it... Oh boy, it hurt me to watch it so I can't even imagine what the husband was feeling. Vance got the gist of what he was supposed to say but what came out could be summed up as "sorry your wife died bro, but this is the first time I'm hearing there are problems in the military" coated in the most HR speech you could have. And then he spent an uncomfortable amount time going into some really weird specifics about how they're trying to prevent this from happening again but that ended up coming across as "your wife died in vain because we didn't think before they got struck". And he didn't know when to end it. His own staff had to cut him off to get him out that low-hanging fruit he jury-rigged into a political mine that he threw himself onto. You could take a literal stranger from the street and there's a high likelihood that stranger would've given a better answer than Vance.

And this is why I'm not worried. Because the republican party is held together by the only strength Trump has, his charm. Now before you're going to say Trump can't have any charm because he's a deplorable rapist whose cognitive capacity is in the red, look at his voters. They're morons. Trump literally said he could say the stupidest thing and they would cheer for him. And they cheered for that. His voters don't know what he's doing or saying or anything. All they see is how he present himself and he presents himself in a way where his voters think he knows what he's doing. That's the only thing keeping the party together and that requires a certain level of presence and charm. Vance has none of that. Trumpists won't rally behind Vance because he looks like he enjoys getting cucked by his wife, he talks like he's a liberal consultant and he has no spine when it comes to taking some accountability. In many ways he's the very embodiment of the democrat politician every republican voter hates.

I don't know what kind of a political brainwashing the republican party needs to do to get the republicans to support Vance. Or maybe they'll just hollow out Vance and use him as a sock puppet because that would actually improve his charisma.

One person left, 2 years after personally pitching Anthem as a live-service game to EA. The same person returned a few years later and left again in 2020.

How about you answer the question

There's no clear date on when the Anthem pitch happened but it happened before EA appointed Bromberg as the CEO, which was in 2013. Anthem didn't get officially announced until 2017. Unless you meant the nameless teaser they put out in 2014.

If you want to continue arguing this you going to have to personally name who that old guard was because I very much doubt they left within months in 2014.

Under EA what would Bioware have to do for you to say "yeah, Bioware is at fault here"? Because my argument is that EA gave Bioware all the chances to succeed and despite getting all the chances they still couldn't succeed.

And I never said EA is the good guy here. EA is not the good guy. But being an asshole company doesn't instantly mean you're to blame for everything.

EA didn't force them, Bioware pitched Anthem as a live-service style game from the get-go.

Okay, so without being what would Bioware have to do for you to blame Bioware for being shut down?

Well... EA bought Bioware in 2007 which means ME2, Dragon Age Origins and ME3 all came out under EA. Seems like it wasn't an immediate infection. And if you've ever looked into the internal workings of EA they're actually relatively hands off. All they do is set unreasonable expectations and leave it up to the studio to match those expectations. Bioware clearly got a pass on those because Bioware got a decade to fail multiple times. If you want an example of EA actually killing a studio look at Visceral, one underperforming game and the studio got turned into a support studio before being killed off.

Ah, they edited their comment as I was writing up mine. What they wrote before was exactly what Bungie did when they were independent. And if they did exactly the same things why would be assume EA killed Bioware but Bungie get them in their dire state on their own? Even with what the other person now changed the question stays the same. Why should we assume EA made them do those things instead of considering the possibility that they chose to do those things on their own? We have an example of a company making those same decisions all on their own and I think the relationship between EA and Bioware (especially when compared to some other studios like Visceral) EA did put some trust and autonomy into Bioware. I just don't see how it's inconceivable that Bioware could make those bad decisions on their own.

Let's be real, this isn't on EA. The Bioware that made great games hasn't existed for a decade. EA gave Bioware enough time to get its act together and they never could. Any studio with a decade of failures would be shut down.

And that's about the only game you can pin on EA (which BTW isn't even the first Bioware game on the frostbite engine, inquisition was also on frostbite so the engine wasn't completely unfamiliar to them). Anthem got 9 years and the only interesting feature Anthem had was kept only because the EA representative told them to. Veilguard got 6 years after being rebooted. Both games got more than enough time to cook in the oven, one of them came out like a hot snake and the other isn't a turd only if we're being generous.

What do you want Valve to do when the developer has lied?