608 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

Grand_Commander13 wrote...
Any economist could answer that question: if everybody who is willing to buy a game of that formula is willing to buy the specific game if it has at least the quality to garner a legitimate 7.5 review score and it comes out with the quality to garner a 8.5, the audience cares: they enjoy the game that much more

Well, to begin with, the metacritic score for Fo3 was 92 versus a 7.9 user score, whereas for New Vegas it is 86 versus an 8.2 user score, but without the full data set we can't tell whether or not there is a significant difference in user score (there probably is in critic score). So it's not entirely clear one game is objectively better than the other.

That being said, what an economist would say is that rational actors would act to maximize utility. If the sale of two products is identical, an economist certainly wouldn't say the audience likes one game more than the other.  So I don't see how this addreses the question, even if you were right.

Marionetten wrote...
The average audience probably didn't
care. They saw the name Fallout and jumped on it due to the success of
Fallout 3. Brand recognition is a powerful thing.

A lot of
hardcore Fallout fans were however drawn back to the franchise thanks to
Obsidian and this I believe is the key argument here. Instead of trying
to cater to the average gamer who doesn't really give a **** BioWare
should cater to their core audience. A healthy core audience makes for a
healthy franchise. Just look at Minecraft and how successful it has
gotten thanks to word of mouth.

But it hasn't sold more, at least, not yet. The bottom line, if we are speaking in terms of the financial lesson, it doesn't like we can make any judgement about what the implication of New Vegas is.

Basically, who cares what the hardcore Fallout fans want, if they aren't increasing sales or the future prospects of the game?

Modifié par In Exile, 15 novembre 2010 - 01:44 .

[Lyssistr]

Saibh wrote...

Khayness wrote...

Nothing for BioWare. Obsidian is superior in game mechanics, BioWare excels in storytelling.

NWN2, KotOR2, F: NV all use an engine previously developed. If they don't need to make an engine, they can spend more time improving it.

EDIT: And Alpha Protocol is, I think, the only game they made by themselves...and it didn't do that well.

Obsidian is making a new engine as well, Onyx, previews that I came across were positive. Not sure when, we're gonna see it, I hope it's gonna be @ DSIII

[Grand_Commander13]

In Exile wrote...

That being said, what an economist would say is that rational actors would act to maximize utility. If the sale of two products is identical, an economist certainly wouldn't say the audience likes one game more than the other.  So I don't see how this addreses the question, even if you were right.

No, if the sales were identical then an economist would assume that the demand was identical.  Looking at the demand, however, tells you only part of how satisfying the product is: if you could watch a movie you'd like for $5 or a movie you'd love for $5, you would of course see the movie you'd love, assuming you knew which you would prefer.  The additional ticket the theater sold that day would tell the theater owners nothing about how much you preferred the movie you saw except for that you valued the movie at at least $5.  If they had only been offering the movie you'd like they would have sold you the ticket anyway, but they'd be wrong to think that offering the other movie would not have made you happier.

Of course in the real world consumers do not have perfect foreknowledge of how a given product will satisfy them, and consumers are not homogeneous.  Still, the simplified example illustrates the point: Sales does not equal value provided, sales times worth equals value provided.

[Lyssistr]

In Exile wrote...

Grand_Commander13 wrote...
Any economist could answer that question: if everybody who is willing to buy a game of that formula is willing to buy the specific game if it has at least the quality to garner a legitimate 7.5 review score and it comes out with the quality to garner a 8.5, the audience cares: they enjoy the game that much more

Well, to begin with, the metacritic score for Fo3 was 92 versus a 7.9 user score, whereas for New Vegas it is 86 versus an 8.2 user score, but without the full data set we can't tell whether or not there is a significant difference in user score (there probably is in critic score). So it's not entirely clear one game is objectively better than the other.

That being said, what an economist would say is that rational actors would act to maximize utility. If the sale of two products is identical, an economist certainly wouldn't say the audience likes one game more than the other.  So I don't see how this addreses the question, even if you were right.

Marionetten wrote...
The average audience probably didn't
care. They saw the name Fallout and jumped on it due to the success of
Fallout 3. Brand recognition is a powerful thing.

A lot of
hardcore Fallout fans were however drawn back to the franchise thanks to
Obsidian and this I believe is the key argument here. Instead of trying
to cater to the average gamer who doesn't really give a **** BioWare
should cater to their core audience. A healthy core audience makes for a
healthy franchise. Just look at Minecraft and how successful it has
gotten thanks to word of mouth.

But it hasn't sold more, at least, not yet. The bottom line, if we are speaking in terms of the financial lesson, it doesn't like we can make any judgement about what the implication of New Vegas is.

Basically, who cares what the hardcore Fallout fans want, if they aren't increasing sales or the future prospects of the game?

Doesn't EA measure sales via shipped copies as well?

[In Exile]

Grand_Commander13 wrote...
No, if the sales were identical then an economist would assume that the demand was identical.  Looking at the demand, however, tells you only part of how satisfying the product is: if you could watch a movie you'd like for $5 or a movie you'd love for $5, you would of course see the movie you'd love, assuming you knew which you would prefer.

That's just basic utility theory, obviously. The issue is that we can't infer an indifference curve from as single data point, but that's essentially what you're suggesting, i.e. the even with identical sales New Vegas was somehow more satisfying. But we don't have the data to know this. This is my point.

The additional ticket the theater sold that day would tell the theater owners nothing about how much you preferred the movie you saw except for that you valued the movie at at least $5.  If they had only been offering the movie you'd like they would have sold you the ticket anyway, but they'd be wrong to think that offering the other movie would not have made you happier.

But whether or not you are happier is irrelevant to the operation of the business. What matters is whether or not their new product would cause you to substitute for their good. If the purchasing patterns are identical, the overal utility in the sense of satisfaction is irrelevant.

Of course in the real world consumers do not have perfect foreknowledge of how a given product will satisfy them, and consumers are not homogeneous.  Still, the simplified example illustrates the point: Sales does not equal value provided, sales times worth equals value provided.

Well, certainly, but worth is a subjective rating we don't have access to. Supposing what worth is greater or not is precisely the assumption that I'm questioning.

[Grand_Commander13]

The funny thing about loyalty to nothing but money is that it too often takes you to the same place that thinking nothing of money can take you. If you care nothing for your customers, are genuinely apathetic about them so long as you are harvesting as much cash from them as possible, that shows in your interactions with them and will be a turnoff.

Anyway, the entire premise I was attacking was that you could judge worth based on sales. The whole point was to illustrate that there were data points you lacked the ability to see. I bought both Fallout 3 and Fallout: New Vegas, but I liked Fallout: New Vegas a whole lot more. I mean, it doesn't even compare.

[In Exile]

Grand_Commander13 wrote...

The funny thing about loyalty to nothing but money is that it too often takes you to the same place that thinking nothing of money can take you. If you care nothing for your customers, are genuinely apathetic about them so long as you are harvesting as much cash from them as possible, that shows in your interactions with them and will be a turnoff.

What? What does this have to do with anything?

Anyway, the entire premise I was attacking was that you could judge worth based on sales. The whole point was to illustrate that there were data points you lacked the ability to see. I bought both Fallout 3 and Fallout: New Vegas, but I liked Fallout: New Vegas a whole lot more. I mean, it doesn't even compare.

Which data points? I mean, it's awesome you loved New Vegas a lot more. I'm very happy for you. But how does Obsidian or Bestheda know you loved New Vegas a lot more? That's my question, and that's what I still don't understand.

[Grand_Commander13]

In order: Everything. How much people liked the games.

[Lyssistr]

In Exile wrote...

Grand_Commander13 wrote...

The funny thing about loyalty to nothing but money is that it too often takes you to the same place that thinking nothing of money can take you. If you care nothing for your customers, are genuinely apathetic about them so long as you are harvesting as much cash from them as possible, that shows in your interactions with them and will be a turnoff.

What? What does this have to do with anything?

Anyway, the entire premise I was attacking was that you could judge worth based on sales. The whole point was to illustrate that there were data points you lacked the ability to see. I bought both Fallout 3 and Fallout: New Vegas, but I liked Fallout: New Vegas a whole lot more. I mean, it doesn't even compare.

Which data points? I mean, it's awesome you loved New Vegas a lot more. I'm very happy for you. But how does Obsidian or Bestheda know you loved New Vegas a lot more? That's my question, and that's what I still don't understand.

They can't tell if *he* likes it more, but if there's a pattern there(*), eventually it will show up on sales.

(*) Haven't played NV yet, so can't say if there's indeed a pattern.

[Derengard]

You can't directly compare the sales of Fallout 3 and NV and draw your conclusions about the reception of the added "complexity". The releases are too far apart and the situation is always slightly different. There are also many other factors like saturation of the franchise. The assumption of this thread is that oldschool gameplay elements are not something the audience looks at mistrustingly, at least if they're part of a framework they're acquainted with, and don't stay in the way of healthy sales and positive critique. And that by contrast they're received favourably or discussed constructively.

Modifié par Derengard, 15 novembre 2010 - 03:12 .

[Tiax Rules All]

haven't read the thread just popping in to say I bought this game solely on what I heard about the new hardcore mode. I still have issues with the game but added complexity and hardcore mode are not them.

[Lyssistr]

Derengard wrote...

You can't directly compare the sales of Fallout 3 and NV and draw your conclusions about the reception of the added "complexity". The releases are too far apart and the situation is always slightly different. There are also many other factors like saturation of the franchise. The assumption of this thread is that oldschool gameplay elements are not something the audience looks at mistrustingly, at least if they're part of a framework they're acquainted with, and don't stay in the way of healthy sales and positive critique. And that by contrast they're received favourably or discussed constructively.

 I very much doubt that difference in sales has to do with a widened market capacity.

 Also, I don't think the point is that it sold more due to complexity, even if this may well be the case. It's rather evidence that a complex(*) game can sell extremely well in the era of "you push a button and something awesome happens".

(*) I reserve my judgement on whether it's actually complex or not, I haven't played NV yet.

[Senzen Sumnor]

Saibh wrote...

Wyndham711 wrote...

Saibh wrote...

Wyndham711 wrote...

New Vegas also sold huge amounts, despite its horrendously buggy state, dated graphics, and expansion packy nature. Regardless, it sold much more than something like DA:O or Mass Effect 2. To me it just tells that the Bethesda way of RPG is significantly more appealing to the masses than the Bioware one. People just love the open world.

Well...no. Not exactly. It sold less than ME2. And DAO, I think, sold more, if only for being available on the PS3. Not to mention Awakening's sales can be considered in, as well.

So far, at least. The game hasn't been out that long.

It already surpassed sales of 5 million. At least I haven't heard of such sales with BioWare's franchises. What were the sales figures of DAO or ME2, then?

Huh. Really? Last I heard, it was hovering a bit over two million. In that case, yeah, it outsold DAO or ME2.

Yeah, it has sold 5 million and that's in two weeks, it's not even close to Christmas yet.  It has easily surpassed Bioware's highest selling game in a very short amount of time.

[AlanC9]

Grand_Commander13 wrote...

In order: Everything. How much people liked the games.

I thought the question was how would Obsidian know which one you liked better.

[AlanC9]

I just want to back up a bit here

Meltemph wrote...

Units shipped is sold for the manufacturer, however that does not mean the retailers have made money off them yet. So it depends on what you want to know. If you want to know how many people actually bought the game... Well outside of maybe MMO's, we never are told and/or nobody knows that number. If you are an investor wondering how good a game did for a manufacturer/producer/developer, well then obviously the amount shipped is what you are going to be looking at.

So software publishing doesn't have a returns policy the way book publishing does? (The only software business I ever worked in was subscription-based.) In book publishing we didn't count anything that didn't get sold to a consumer. Or rather, we did, and then we uncounted some of them, but let's not get confusing.

[Meltemph]

In book publishing we didn't count anything that didn't get sold to a consumer. Or rather, we did, and then we uncounted some of them, but let's not get confusing.

Not sure exactly how book sales work honestly... I mean, we had Software Guide books and things of that nature, but there was no return policy form the publishers end with the books we ordered. As for software... We were never able to return software that we ordered... Maybe Walmart or something like that would have a deal like that, but I never heard of such a thing.

That sounds to me, like a very weird practice... I mean, if a company like Apple didn't let us just return what we didn't sell or any company for that matter, I don't see how manufacturers would'n't get completely screwed over.  I mean, that does not even make sense to me, that would mean all the risk is on the manufacturers side and the retailer takes 0 risk on their purchases.

If a software company actually does have a policy like that, I've never encountered it(although to be fair it has been a couple years since I worked in that type of job), and in this environment, I would call them a pretty stupid company.

Modifié par Meltemph, 15 novembre 2010 - 04:03 .

[TheConfidenceMan]

AlanC9 wrote...

Grand_Commander13 wrote...

In order: Everything. How much people liked the games.

I thought the question was how would Obsidian know which one you liked better.

They know their audience.

[StingingVelvet]

In Exile wrote...

But it hasn't sold more, at least, not yet. The bottom line, if we are speaking in terms of the financial lesson, it doesn't like we can make any judgement about what the implication of New Vegas is.

Basically, who cares what the hardcore Fallout fans want, if they aren't increasing sales or the future prospects of the game?

I grant you we don't have solid sales evidence yet, but the official word from Bethesda was that the game is selling at a faster rate than FO3 did.  Now, maybe it will have a smaller tail, but I used this as my basis for "good sales."  As for reviews, the score average might be lower but that is due to bugs, when you read the reviews pretty much all of them praise the added features and depth, which is what I based that on.  User reaction is user reaction, on the forums I go to New Vegas is praised well above Fallout 3... that's a select sample, I grant you.

In any case as I have said before I want to take a more general look at it.  New Vegas, in 2010, added complexity into a game rather than taking it out.  Fable 3 and Gothic 4 took complexity out of the game, rather than keeping it in.  That's interesting to me.

[MerinTB]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

StingingVelvet wrote...
No, the topic is that New Vegas added depth and complexity and was praised for it while Fable 3 and Gothic 4 were bashed for removing depth and complexity: what does this mean for DA2? 

The topic is needlessly precise and tries to make a point based on a premise that is open to dispute.  Therefore, disputing the premise - eg, discussing the merits of New Vegas - is very much on topic.  Unless your assertion is that premises established in the original post are not open to challenge.

The OP, I feel, is probably a better arbiter of what the topic of the thread is.

Or, to paraphrase what you wrote -

"I disagree with (what I believe to be) your major unstated premise, and as such I will undermine said unstated premise by poisoning the well of the example you give and therefore destroying your major unstated premise.

You telling me that you didn't have an unstated premise, that my assumption and later assertions are wrong, is incorrect because what I believe the thread to be is what the thread is to me and, regardless of you having started the thread and your attempting to clarify, repeatedly, what you meant to have discussed with this thread, I choose to discuss a tangent that is more relevant to me."

<_<

[Jarek_Cousland]

I actually really love the complexities of old school rpgs with the choices and what not.





Its just the boring combat of most of them with the "hit then get hit" turn based style.





For me to think of DA2 as a masterpiece would be if the combat was vamped up (which it should be) while still having the same depth as Origins while adding with Hawkes VA.



wishful thinking? I hope not.

[Felene]

"Bethesda Softworks Announces Successful Launch of Fallout®: New Vegas™"-Five Million Launch Units to Meet Worldwide Demand

Quote from press-release "...Five million units of Fallout: New Vegas were shipped worldwide..."

Company made 5 million copies of the game to be sold, not already sold.

If any gaming news network post Fallout:New Vegas sells 5 million copies, that pretty much means that gaming news network is unreliable for giving false informations.

Back to topic, What doe New Vegas mean for Dragon Age 2 (and Bioware)?

In my opinion, nothing, different company with different approach toward game design.

Unless OP is implying that BioWare should start making games that require the slient player character to eat, drink and sleep to avoid starvation, dehydration and exhaustion as a gameplay mechanism.

Fallout: New Vegas has yet success in tempting me to buy a copy of the game, I played Fallout 3 and yet I feel nothing for the Lone Wanderer while I totaly adore Shepard and the Warden.

[In Exile]

StingingVelvet wrote...

I grant you we don't have solid sales evidence yet, but the official word from Bethesda was that the game is selling at a faster rate than FO3 did.  Now, maybe it will have a smaller tail, but I used this as my basis for "good sales."

My issue with that would be that if Fo3 NV does as well as the original Fo3 (give or take), it's going to be hard concluding what the general reception of these more complex (say I grant that) RPG features is.

Essentially, my question for you is how can we tell the difference between ''Man, I love these features!'' and ''Who cares, but they did keep other features x,y,z, the same, so that rocks and I bougth New Vegas!''.

As for reviews, the score average might be lower but that is due to bugs, when you read the reviews pretty much all of them praise the added features and depth, which is what I based that on.  User reaction is user reaction, on the forums I go to New Vegas is praised well above Fallout 3... that's a select sample, I grant you.

Speaking as someone who has done quite a lot of population research, without the ability to randomly sample, we can't come to any conclusion. Professional reviews, user reviews, forums, etc. could all be self-selected samples. We'd need some way to randomly survey original Fo3 users who bought New Vegas.

In any case as I have said before I want to take a more general look at it.  New Vegas, in 2010, added complexity into a game rather than taking it out.  Fable 3 and Gothic 4 took complexity out of the game, rather than keeping it in.  That's interesting to me.

I can't speak to either game. Fable III, because I haven't played it. I can't possibly see how it could be less complex than Fable II, though. As for Gothic 4, I thought Gothic 2 was such an unplayable horror, combining the worst in fixed protagonist with action-RPG, that I can't understand how a 3rd game was made much, much less a 4th.

[Meltemph]

added complexity into a game rather than taking it out.

What complexity are you talking about? You keep saying it, but you are not describing it. The stats are as straight forward as they have ever been, hardcore mode was just a time sink and inventory management... What is this complexity you are talking about? Unless you mean story?

[Derengard]

Lyssistr wrote...
 I very much doubt that difference in sales has to do with a widened market capacity.

 Also, I don't think the point is that it sold more due to complexity, even if this may well be the case. It's rather evidence that a complex(*) game can sell extremely well in the era of "you push a button and something awesome happens".

I actually don't see how anything about sales discussion added to the topic. You don't need to ascribe different amounts of sales to specific paragraphs in positive critiques. You can just take them both independently (high sales, good reviews) and be satisfied with the "success".
I think your latter sentence says it all.

And I think the complexity is just an attribute that the OP identified as being defining of "old school" game design. I doubt that complexity as such is perceived isolated in many buyers decisions. It's rather the whole entity "NV" that made a convincing impression, of which complexity was contributing but not all-defining.

[Ziggeh]

Lyssistr wrote...

It's rather evidence that a complex(*) game can sell extremely well in the era of "you push a button and something awesome happens".

Did you follow the marketing for FNV at all? They were very keen on showcasing the grenade machine gun.