Dr. Peter Venkman wrote...
Ecael wrote...
As I mentioned above, that's assuming that there are more people who bought Mass Effect 1 and then never bothered to purchase Mass Effect 2. That doesn't look good for Mass Effect 1 or the trilogy in general.
Not assuming anything. As it stands now, more people bought ME 2 during the opener than ME, however there are no numbers showing if there is a correlation between owning ME 1 and then buying ME 2. If there is, sales will match ME 1. I think it's logical to assume that people who buy ME 2 and don't have ME will do so at some time in the future.
That's not the point. There are 5 kinds of people for Mass Effect:
1. Bought ME1 -> Bought ME2
2. Bought ME1 -> Did NOT buy ME2
3. Did NOT buy ME1 -> Bought ME2
4. Bought ME2 -> Bought ME1
5. Did NOT buy ME1 or ME2
If only 1, 4 and 5 occurred, then the chart would break even at the very end. We can ignore these because they aren't causing any kind of competition between the two.
If 2 is occurring more often than 3 (as in, more people who bought ME1 didn't want to buy ME2 for some reason or another), then sales of ME1 would be higher at the end. This is what you suggested; however, this also illustrates that something about Mass Effect 1 turned people off to buying the sequel.
If 3 is occurring more often than 2 (as in, more people who bought ME2 didn't want to buy ME1 for some reason or another), then sales of ME2 would be higher at the end. This shows there are people who bought ME2 and never bothered with ME1, ever.
Either way, a significant discrepancy between the sales of the two will make Mass Effect 1 look bad in comparison. I wouldn't be rooting for either one to occur.
The best thing that could happen is that they break even, which means everyone who buys one or the other will want to complete the trilogy. That is a sign that Mass Effect 3 will sell well.
The content wasn't already created before the game launched, there
simply wasn't any time or resources to finish it by the release date.
Just ask any of the BioWare developers on the forum - they have a
dedicated DLC team that started work right after the game went gold.
This is the same spiel that they gave with DA:O; wait, magical DLC is available for a low, low price, right at launch!
Dragon Age isn't a good example to compare Mass Effect. It was supposed to be released in 2007, being in development since around 2004. It's had the combined development time of both Mass Effect 1 and 2, so there obviously wasn't any rush in finishing the game's content. Mass Effect 2 and Mass Effect 3, however, has a very limited development window because it is stuck to Unreal Engine 3, which is going to become outdated by 2012.
You can choose not to believe Michael Gamble, but then that means you simply won't believe anyone even if BioWare employees drove to your house and showed you their work. You'd probably think it was some kind of conspiracy if they did that anyway.
Sure, EA might have set the release date a bit early, but what's wrong with
getting a game much earlier when it's practically complete? It's a lot
better than waiting months and months just to include every bit of
content possible and also better than never seeing the content at all.
It's double dipping.
Time is money, so it's not double dipping. BioWare employees do not stop getting paid after a game is released. They're still actively working on something - whether it is the Zaeed/Crash Site DLC between the manufacturing and distribution of the release title or the Kasumi DLC after finishing the free Firewalker Pack.
Nothing was stopping EA from delaying the release date and then increasing the price 10 dollars while the team was at work finishing the rest of the game.
Modifié par Ecael, 12 mai 2010 - 07:15 .
Retour en haut
