219 réponses à ce sujet

[Cybermortis]

The auto attack feature was implemented for consoles, but somehow got left out of the master copies. I don't consider this to be lying, and am willing to accept that they didn't realise it was missing until after release. Such mistakes may be humiliating, but they do happen on occasion, so I'm willing to let that one slide - providing they get around to fixing it.

[Ronin2006]

Rockpopple wrote...

Ronin2006 wrote...

Rockpopple wrote...

Ronin2006 wrote...

Rockpopple wrote...

Somehow, I think they'll be alright.

Probably.  Many large businesses do survive despite horrible decision-making.  Also, if Bioware is a wholly owned subsidiary of EA, then they are backed by one of the largest companies in the industry, so can probably afford to make a lot of stupid mistakes (if they choose to).  But still, no business should make these decisions if they aren't profitable in the long term and it certainly isn't wise.

In your opinion.

Which part of this is opinion? *snippity-snip*

Just about all of it.

I thought about going to your OP, quoting it and remarking on every single point you made and how it was all your opinion. Things like how you believe "appealing to a larger market" was a mistake, or how Laidlaw alienated all of DA's fans, or how.... well now I'm forgetting the rest because it all just melded into this giant soup of opinion I've seen countless times from other people who did not like DA II.

I thought about it. Then I thought: why bother? It wouldn't convince you or anyone else. By this point in time, people are firmly settled in their camps and not likely to budge any way.

So yeah, they're opinions, whether you like to believe everything that you state is cold-hard indisputable fact or not. That's all that I'll say about that.

Well, at least you have sort of clarified that you find the opinion part to be the original post rather then the post above which doesn't really have too much subjective content.

Anyway, I don't think anything I've stated is cold-hard indisputable fact and am unwilling to budge on my opinion.  In fact that's why I posted it, I wanted to gauge how other people felt about it and discuss it, but if that's the way you feel then that's too bad.

I am guessing that you liked the game and didn't see anything wrong with it or it's marketing, and that's fantastic.  I wish I felt the same, but I really don't.

Modifié par Ronin2006, 01 avril 2011 - 05:45 .

[ScotGaymer]

grahsco1 wrote...

My feeling from reading your post is that you know what you want in a video game, but your points are based on your preferences/assumptions and not from a "business" perspective.

What will determine if Bioware/EA is an utter failure is...... Sales. Can they sell this game, and future ones. And at this point, I suspect they can.

Obviously at this point we dont know how much "real sales" Bioware have made of DA2; but early indications are that its actually by far the worst selling Bioware game ever.

It actually appears (if preliminary sales figures are anything to go by) that DA2 is selling worse than Fable 3 did in its first month, at least if I go buy its place in the Xbox Chart in my local Gamestation store. Fable 3 was at number 4 in the chart up until its 4th week, then it dropped to 9th, and then dropped completely out of the charts some time in the second month.
Given how appallingly bad Fable 3 was and is, it is saying something that in its 3rd week of sales Dragon Age 2 is in 6th place in most games stores (for Xbox) here in the UK. And as near as I can tell this trend is nearly universal across platforms and in various markets...

EDIT:
Having a quick look at the UK sales charts (UKIE) which encompasses all sales with in the UK (supposedly) Dragon Age 3 is at overall 13th (!) place in its third week of sales. Thats bad. Really really bad. Especially for a Bioware game.

Modifié par FitScotGaymer, 01 avril 2011 - 05:50 .

[Ronin2006]

Cybermortis wrote...

@Ronin2006 The DRM issue was, as I recall, from Mass Effect not DAO. The way it worked was to basically install spyware on your PC that limited the number of times you could install the software.
This had an impact on ME sales, as people were understandably not happy at these limitations on what was effectively their property.
The DRM was ruled as illegal, and ordered to be removed from the later copies of the game while a program was released that disabled it on the older versions.

This at least is what I can recall off the top of my head.

Ahh, I remember the Mass Effect DRM, that was a shocker.  In fact I thankfully bought Mass Effect after the DRM was taken out.  It's one of the reasons I didn't buy Spore when that came out (and in hindsight I'm glad I didn't buy it at all.)

Anyway, there was some DRM on DA 2, but not quite at the same level as DRM for Mass Effect.  I think EA bypassed the issue on a technicality, but here are some articles about it:  (Note the difference with DA O)

http://www.destructo...sc-196185.phtml

http://www.destructo...us-146344.phtml

I can say that for me personally I had to install the game three times because the DRM was being blocked by AVG.  It was a nuisance and a pain and I felt like I was being punished for having actually bought the game legitimately.

[AkiKishi]

FitScotGaymer wrote...
EDIT:
Having a quick look at the UK sales charts (UKIE) which encompasses all sales with in the UK (supposedly) Dragon Age 3 is at overall 13th (!) place in its third week of sales. Thats bad. Really really bad. Especially for a Bioware game.

I posted the prices from Gameplay just now (thread got locked).

But it's
£17.99 PC
£27.99 console.

That's for a game released on the 11th of last month.

After the various retailers have their "fire sales" I don't see DA2's figures going up much.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 01 avril 2011 - 05:54 .

[Rockpopple]

Ronin2006 wrote...

I am guessing that you liked the game and didn't see anything wrong with it or it's marketing, and that's fantastic.  I wish I felt the same, but I really don't.

Wow? You call that a guess? More like a shot in the complete dark.

That is to say, you'd be guessing wrong. Really wrong. 

Modifié par Rockpopple, 01 avril 2011 - 06:18 .

[Cybermortis]

I *Think* the DRM problem with DA2 was that it was set up to prevent people being able to play the game until the day of release. However it thoughtfully blocked some people who'd got the game via steam or pre-order for days afterwards.

Educated guess would be that someone at Bioware/EA forgot all about time zones.

[Ronin2006]

Rockpopple wrote...

Ronin2006 wrote...

I am guessing that you liked the game and didn't see anything wrong with it or it's marketing, and that's fantastic.  I wish I felt the same, but I really don't.

Wow? You call that a guess? More like a shot in the complete dark.

That is to say, you'd be guessing wrong. Really wrong. 

Actually, my guess came from the fact that you have dismissed this thread as being purely opinion without actually contributing anything substantial to it.  (Much like another poster here) If you have another opinion, then I was wrong, but I did state it was a "guess" afterall.

Anyway, if you care to actually provide your real opinion and contribute in some meaningful way to the discussion then I am happy to hear it.  Otherwise, it really is just a waste of time and effort to post here if you don't contribute in any meaningful way other than to trash the thread itself.

[ScotGaymer]

BobSmith101 wrote...

FitScotGaymer wrote...
EDIT:
Having a quick look at the UK sales charts (UKIE) which encompasses all sales with in the UK (supposedly) Dragon Age 3 is at overall 13th (!) place in its third week of sales. Thats bad. Really really bad. Especially for a Bioware game.

I posted the prices from Gameplay just now (thread got locked).

But it's
£17.99 PC
£27.99 console.

That's for a game released on the 11th of last month.

After the various retailers have their "fire sales" I don't see DA2's figures going up much.

Exactly that was my point, these figures (which claim to be all platforms including digital based within the UK) mean that once the blind preorder sales were accounted for DA2 just isnt selling anywhere near what Bioware games ordinarily sell.
Being 13th place in third week means that effectively by the 4th week sales figures are posted, or perhaps the 5th week, Dragon Age 2 is going to drop completely out of the charts. Its almost guaranteed. And when you compare that with the fact that Fallout New Vegas is STILL in the top 20 MONTHS after its release it shows up how badly this game is failing.

Seeing these figures I am actually concerned that the poor figures will mean no DA3.

I mean I knew sales had to be bad when I noticed that my local game store was selling Sig Edition copies of DA2 on the shelf (when they were supposedly preorder only and supposedly only a set amount sent to each store) but I wasnt expecting it to be so low.
I was expecting like 9th actually. Yikes.

[skyrend]

Agreed with all points in the original post.

Bioware isn't getting a penny more from me after this game. Except maybe GOG Baldur's Gate sometime in the future.

[Dagiz]

Rockpopple wrote...

Ronin2006 wrote...

Rockpopple wrote...

Ronin2006 wrote...

Rockpopple wrote...

Somehow, I think they'll be alright.

Probably.  Many large businesses do survive despite horrible decision-making.  Also, if Bioware is a wholly owned subsidiary of EA, then they are backed by one of the largest companies in the industry, so can probably afford to make a lot of stupid mistakes (if they choose to).  But still, no business should make these decisions if they aren't profitable in the long term and it certainly isn't wise.

In your opinion.

Which part of this is opinion? *snippity-snip*

Just about all of it.

I thought about going to your OP, quoting it and remarking on every single point you made and how it was all your opinion. Things like how you believe "appealing to a larger market" was a mistake, or how Laidlaw alienated all of DA's fans, or how.... well now I'm forgetting the rest because it all just melded into this giant soup of opinion I've seen countless times from other people who did not like DA II.

I thought about it. Then I thought: why bother? It wouldn't convince you or anyone else. By this point in time, people are firmly settled in their camps anhttp://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/315/new_post/6882739/6886691d not likely to budge any way.

So yeah, they're opinions, whether you like to believe everything that you state is cold-hard indisputable fact or not. That's all that I'll say about that.

This. 

1.)  Unless you have hard facts (how do we difine what a fac it is)

2.) a business development plan (which realy doesn't matter because what one person sees as a succesful business plan another will see as utter failure)

3.) real solid number (than again numbers can be interpreted anyway some wants to interpret them - i.e. some can say that the fact that 40% of people hated DAII  means it a failure others can say 60% is a great approval rating - ala the US president when whoever it is has that approval rating, others can point to the number of pre-orders and sales and say its a success)

It's all opinion.  You say they are ignoring their base...uh who is their base?    is it the person who bought BG?    Is it the person who was introduced to Bioware via ME?  Or how about through KoTOR?   who defines their base?  I  don't know how to do that.  We could look at join dates for these forums, but we all pretty much have joined at the same time...unless you count those that came from 4chan to blister about someone not getting their game started right because they were banned....are those people their base?  Hard to answer that one.

From my perspective there seems to be a personal grudge against ML.  It appears that there is a crusade to get him fired.  He may have been the lead designer, but in reality unless the higher ups sign off on his vision...it doesn't get made.  So if he hasn't addressed every one's concern individually...which would get tiresome...just look at the crap Gaider is going through right now, I don't think he is dismissing them.  It's just a no win sitiuation.  If nothing was changed from DA:O  there would be complaining.  With things changing there is complaining.  Either way, some one complains.  

Meh, DLC is DLC, yeah it sucks at times...really short crappy DLC, but that's what they've done before, adding stand alone adventures that may or may not have anything to do with the main story.  See. NWN and the DLC  they had with that.  And that was a couple years after the games initial release.  I do agree with you that the game felt a little short, that parts were missing.   And if that is done purposefully to gain sales...you know what it does suck, but people will buy.  That's like and the bottom line is that this is a business and the goal is to make money.  Don't have to like it, like the damn finance charges when buying a car, but it happens, you deal or you don't buy.   Your choice.  

Short development cycle...eh, it's going to happen.  Look at NWN2.  Anyways, we really have no idea when they started wtih the idea of DAII, or at least I have not seen a date saying "This is when we started ont he develoment of DAII" since there are so many teams working on different games.  It's going to happen, and these days, a year and a half is probably on par with the majority of games out there.   There are exceptions I am sure.  

As for appealing to the masses...well they want to make money, so why not?    Does it change an aspect of a game?    It may.  Or it may not.  My brother in law is an  FPS type guy.   All he plays.  In addition to that, he also believes that Diablo is the end all be all for games.  He tried and like DA:O...never finished it though.  He tried and like DAII...didn't finish it either.  For him it was still not the same and he wanted his FPS game.  So for me, and he's not the only one I  know of, if you are an FPS person, than those are the games you are going to play.  Unless DA goes that route as a franchise, I don't see that market of gamers making the switch.  Now, as far as hybridizing it...well they tried, it worked for the most part...though there are bugs...as we all know.  

As for your point on insulting the intelligence of customers by pushing a button...well I always hate this arguement.  And this is what it is.   That being said...I had the game on nightmare and there were no AI auto stuff for me.  turned it all off.  So it was not simply a matter of pushing a button and whee..things went well.  More often than not, doing that way...yeah I had to pay attention to that.  Not just sit back and watch. 

DRM - well everysoftware company has some form of it.   EVERY  one does.  There is going to be security measures in place.  The only ones that don't are open source software.   And really, what harm was it to fill out your number and than log in once.  ONE  TIME.   That's all it was.  Once and it was done.   I spent all my time not logged in.  I don't get this. But that is me.  

My intention wasn't to respond to each point...and I should have stopped.  But I just got going with some points...and maybe to illustrate a little better...I fell your business plan that you have pseudo-outlined would be an utter failure and in shambles.  Nothing personal, but what you outlined to me would not work.  But that's just my opinion.

[Ronin2006]

FitScotGaymer wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

FitScotGaymer wrote...
EDIT:
Having a quick look at the UK sales charts (UKIE) which encompasses all sales with in the UK (supposedly) Dragon Age 3 is at overall 13th (!) place in its third week of sales. Thats bad. Really really bad. Especially for a Bioware game.

I posted the prices from Gameplay just now (thread got locked).

But it's
£17.99 PC
£27.99 console.

That's for a game released on the 11th of last month.

After the various retailers have their "fire sales" I don't see DA2's figures going up much.

Exactly that was my point, these figures (which claim to be all platforms including digital based within the UK) mean that once the blind preorder sales were accounted for DA2 just isnt selling anywhere near what Bioware games ordinarily sell.
Being 13th place in third week means that effectively by the 4th week sales figures are posted, or perhaps the 5th week, Dragon Age 2 is going to drop completely out of the charts. Its almost guaranteed. And when you compare that with the fact that Fallout New Vegas is STILL in the top 20 MONTHS after its release it shows up how badly this game is failing.

Seeing these figures I am actually concerned that the poor figures will mean no DA3.

I mean I knew sales had to be bad when I noticed that my local game store was selling Sig Edition copies of DA2 on the shelf (when they were supposedly preorder only and supposedly only a set amount sent to each store) but I wasnt expecting it to be so low.
I was expecting like 9th actually. Yikes.

Wow, this is indeed quite shocking.  To be honest I actually thought that DA 2 would at least sell well in the initial few weeks, but maybe I'm wrong here.  That's a shame, because I still like Bioware despite feeling that DA 2 was an absolute abomination.

Pardon my ignorance, but what do you guys NORMALLY pay for a full price game?

Here in Australia (not in Australia ATM, it's actually 5 am back there) we pay $100 or so for a full price console game at the store.  Considering that the dollar is now level with the USD we are really getting the short end of it.

[ZombiePowered]

Ronin2006 wrote...





[*]Mike Laidlaw dismissing some of the concerns of disillusioned DA O fans.  Honestly, no business wants to alienate it's core/existing customers.  Some of the things that have been stated are not going to endear him to people who have been loyal customers of Bioware.  (this is regardless of whether he is right or not, the fact is a lot of the DA O fans felt that he has criticised them personally by failing to really acknowledge their concerns and complaints in interviews)

I highly doubt Laidlaw has alienated all of the DA:O players. I, for example, don't feel alienated at all, I played through DA:O five times. There is always a group of people who get disillusioned by every sequel. People cried about DA:O not being as good as BG2, and people cried about ME2 not being as good as ME. They're doing the same with DA2. They'll be back for expansions and DA3.
Of course, this is all just my opinion. As is that "fact" you've bulleted up there.

[*]The use of DLC at launch for an arguably incomplete game.  Many people (myself included) felt as though a big part of the "core" game was missing and that it was designed in part to sell more DLC.  (Consider the ending to this game, and the flagrant pimping of the Exiled Prince DLC)  Look, I understand the need for DLC and how it can turn in a healthy profit.  But the best way to entice people to buy the 'extras' is to make the core product as good as possible and as complete as possible.  DA O felt like a "complete" game, and because I enjoyed it so much I went on to buy Awakenings and some DLC.  If the "core" game isn't as complete, it doesn't always mean people will buy the DLC for the "full experience," instead they will feel like you didn't give them value for money and will instead be more frugal when approaching your products in the future.  This game is being sold as a full retail game, and the features should reflect a full gaming experience.

Your entire argument here is that DA2 is an incomplete game meant to be a vessel to sell DLC. First, you say the game is incomplete because the ending is a cliffhanger. That is like saying the ending to any TV episode/season with a cliffhanger is incomplete. DA2 is the second part in a series. It is not the last, the questions will be answered later. It merely developed on the ongoing story of the world and set up greater conflicts to come. Don't accuse it of being incomplete because it didn't wrap up every little question you had with walls of text at the end.
As for DLC, yes, it is meant to sell DLC. Many games are these days. That isn't a bad thing. It just means that instead of going cold turkey on a game while you wait for expansions and sequels, you get little bits of additional content to entertain you while you wait.
But, once again, this is my opinion, like your second "factual" point.

[*]Short development cycle.  I am assuming that EA wanted to capitalise on the success of DA O, and wanted to sell DA 2 while the first game was still in the minds of gamers around the world.  This is fine, but there can be no doubt that this has compromised the final product to some extent (the respawning enemies and level re-use shows this more than anything).  Now, if you were to compromise the product so as to capitalise on market interest, you need to be confident that the market is one where interest will diminish quickly over time so that time will be of the essence in releasing the next product.  Unfortunately, as far as videogames are concerned, this theory doesn't appear to hold true.  Look at the hype of games like Skyrim, or looking further back, Ocarina of Time.  I remember when I was a child and Ocarina of Time seemed to take forever to be released, and each setback seemed to only add to the hype (it was meant to be a N64 release game but ended up being released far later).  Nintendo seemed to use the long development time to their advantage in hyping the game, telling consumers that they were only making the game the greatest experience possible.  Ultimately, the extra time spent developing the game turned what could of been an average game to a general consesus contender for GOAT, and extremely profitable.  (Whether you personally like Ocarina of Time isn't really the issue)

There is, at the core of this, a fact; the short development cycle did, to some extent, harm the final product that is DA2--though the only objective thing we can agree upon is that this would have solved the reuse of levels issue. I see no evidence that the waves of enemies combat is the result of a rushed game; it could just be how they wanted fights to be. Enemy "insta-respawns" is a bit of a silly thing, true, but I see that as more of an issue with wave-style combat, not lack of development time. Best case scenario would have been they set up impassable objects that enemies emerge from. Both of these issues are rather minor, regardless. I will agree that the short development time was needless and served no purpose, but extending that time by another six months wouldn't have greatly changed the story or characters--it would have just polished them up more.

[*]Trying to appeal to the masses.  I believe that they were thinking that if they make the game as accessible as possible, then you open up the biggest potential fanbase.  While at a basic business/marketing perspective this makes sense , it would be pretty naive to think of the gaming market in such a simple manner.  People who play videogames come from a diverse range of ages and backgrounds, and they don't all share the same interests.  The biggest pool of people in the videogame market would indeed appear to come from the COD or FPS audience, but this is not who should be targetted for a game that is a successor to DA O.  One of the reasons for the success of DA O was the concept of product differentiation.  (Where a product is deliberately different from it's competitors and in doing so is able to capture a unique and particular market segment.  Think of it as a bit of a 'niche' product)  DA O successfully brought in a number of fans who most likely weren't looking for a simple COD type of experience, and it would make a lot of sense for the sequel to do likewise.  At the end of the day, the customers who want another COD will buy the next COD, and if they get desperate, they'll buy Battlefield or one of those franchises.  Not something called "Dragon Age."  I myself play a bit of COD with my mates, and a lot of games in other genres, but when I pick up something by a company called Bioware that's called "Dragon Age" I expect something that is as far removed as possible from this type of game.  (Note:  If you want to tell me they weren't trying to get the larger COD audience, perhaps you should read this:  http://www.nowgamer....-dutys-audience)

You completely misread that article. They were saying there are people in CoD who enjoy elements that were taken from RPGs--the leveling system, the idea that you get stronger, put points into certain skill areas and improve them. Bioware was hoping that the players who really enjoy that aspect of the game would enjoy RPGs as well, since that is where the idea came from.
And if you are meaning that point as a comment on the new combat system being "dumbed down", I will point out that it was now dumbed down at all--it was smarted up. Cross-class combos were increased in quantity, tactics were kept, many of the same abilities are there as well. There are more spells and abilities, more sustained effects, as well as upgrades that futher refine those abilities. There is a lot more leeway in how you make a character. You can have two people wielding two handers and have them use completely different skill sets and perform completely different roles. Just because the combat is faster doesn't mean it requires less intelligence.

[*]"If you push a button, something awesome has to happen."  - This has been mentioned so many times, so I don't really want to say too much on it.  But it does seem as though they wanted to produce a more simple action-oriented experience in the combat.  Unfortunately, if the action only requires the simple press of a button, it is generally insulting to the intelligence of the customer, and if they catch on to that feeling, it is generally pretty bad for the company.

Again, not what they meant. They just didn't see why you should clumsily clunk around and auto-attack like in Origins--so they added more abilities, more combos, and made them look cooler. They made a more reactive and interactive experience. They made you actually feel like the legend you were--abilites are awesome, they hit multiple enemies, they make you feel powerful. Origins did not make me feel that way.

[*]DRM (or whatever that weird verification thing was).  Now this only really applies to the PC gamers, but honestly, nothing in my mind could be more shortsighted from a commercial perspective.  The people who are really inconvenienced and effectively taxed and treated like criminals for this game are ultimately the legitimate paying customers.  The fact is, that if I *really* wanted to pirate this game, I would, and I wouldn't encounter any of the stupid DRM.  So why should I, having decided to buy a legitimate copy of the game in good faith, be treated like a suspected criminal?  Have more faith in your customers!

Are you seriously criticizing a company for trying to ensure people who played their product actually bought it? You also may want to recall that in Origins all of your DLC had to be authenticated each time you logged in or else you couldn't use it--something they did away with in DA2, and instead made it so people who bought it could register it on five different computers. That's right--they made it easy for up to five people to share the game and all content bought for it. Which may be a bad business move in and of itself, but it does make your complaining moot.

Modifié par ZombiePowered, 01 avril 2011 - 06:08 .

[AkiKishi]

Ronin2006 wrote...
Pardon my ignorance, but what do you guys NORMALLY pay for a full price game?

Here in Australia (not in Australia ATM, it's actually 5 am back there) we pay $100 or so for a full price console game at the store.  Considering that the dollar is now level with the USD we are really getting the short end of it.

Full price here is around £30 for PC and £40 for console. it can hover a couple of £ in either direction. 

Modifié par BobSmith101, 01 avril 2011 - 06:14 .

[ScotGaymer]

Ronin2006 wrote...

Wow, this is indeed quite shocking.  To be honest I actually thought that DA 2 would at least sell well in the initial few weeks, but maybe I'm wrong here.  That's a shame, because I still like Bioware despite feeling that DA 2 was an absolute abomination.

Pardon my ignorance, but what do you guys NORMALLY pay for a full price game?

Here in Australia (not in Australia ATM, it's actually 5 am back there) we pay $100 or so for a full price console game at the store.  Considering that the dollar is now level with the USD we are really getting the short end of it.

Well ordinarily cost varies quite a bit depending on platform and genre.

But the average is...

Xbox: £39.99
Wii: £34.99
PS3: £49.99
PC: £29.99

At least in stores...

I am actually quite shocked at its place in the charts myself...

Even if you assume it doesnt include digital sales (which is PC only btw); the UKIE encompasses every platform and every outlet in the UK. The fact that its so low in our charts in its 3rd week is really shocking, especially for a Bioware game.
It is literally worse than Fable 3 did (which was 9th in its 3rd week). Thats scary considering Fable 3 was a much more brain numbingly simplistic and outright appallingly bad game than Dragon Age 2 is...

Yikes.

EDIT:
@ZombiePowered...

Actually there has been post release interviews where he did pretty much dismiss the naysayers as old school fans afraid of change. At least thats how I read it.
I dont know if he meant for it to seem like a widesweeping comment; but its how it came off to me.

EDIT2:
I realise that the sales charts dont give you exact sales figures given that overall figures can fluxuate week to week; but it DOES give you a rough idea of how well or how badly a game is selling... At least here in the UK.

I imagine the trend is similar world wide...

Modifié par FitScotGaymer, 01 avril 2011 - 06:17 .

[AkiKishi]

FitScotGaymer wrote...

Ronin2006 wrote...

Wow, this is indeed quite shocking.  To be honest I actually thought that DA 2 would at least sell well in the initial few weeks, but maybe I'm wrong here.  That's a shame, because I still like Bioware despite feeling that DA 2 was an absolute abomination.

Pardon my ignorance, but what do you guys NORMALLY pay for a full price game?

Here in Australia (not in Australia ATM, it's actually 5 am back there) we pay $100 or so for a full price console game at the store.  Considering that the dollar is now level with the USD we are really getting the short end of it.

Well ordinarily cost varies quite a bit depending on platform and genre.

But the average is...

Xbox: £39.99
Wii: £34.99
PS3: £49.99
PC: £29.99

At least in stores...

I am actually quite shocked at its place in the charts myself...

Even if you assume it doesnt include digital sales (which is PC only btw); the UKIE encompasses every platform and every outlet in the UK. The fact that its so low in our charts in its 3rd week is really shocking, especially for a Bioware game.
It is literally worse than Fable 3 did (which was 9th in its 3rd week). Thats scary considering Fable 3 was a much more brain numbingly simplistic and outright appallingly bad game than Dragon Age 2 is...

Yikes.

EDIT:
@ZombiePowered...

Actually there has been post release interviews where he did pretty much dismiss the naysayers as old school fans afraid of change. At least thats how I read it.
I dont know if he meant for it to seem like a widesweeping comment; but its how it came off to me.

EDIT2:
I realise that the sales charts dont give you exact sales figures given that overall figures can fluxuate week to week; but it DOES give you a rough idea of how well or how badly a game is selling... At least here in the UK.

I imagine the trend is similar world wide...

Typo ? I've never paid anything close to that for a PS3 game. Have for 360 games prior to PS3 release, but that's ancient history now.

[Statulos]

Ronin2006 wrote...

[*]

[*]Trying to appeal to the masses.  I believe that they were thinking that if they make the game as accessible as possible, then you open up the biggest potential fanbase.  While at a basic business/marketing perspective this makes sense , it would be pretty naive to think of the gaming market in such a simple manner.  People who play videogames come from a diverse range of ages and backgrounds, and they don't all share the same interests.  The biggest pool of people in the videogame market would indeed appear to come from the COD or FPS audience, but this is not who should be targetted for a game that is a successor to DA O.  One of the reasons for the success of DA O was the concept of product differentiation.  (Where a product is deliberately different from it's competitors and in doing so is able to capture a unique and particular market segment.  Think of it as a bit of a 'niche' product)  DA O successfully brought in a number of fans who most likely weren't looking for a simple COD type of experience, and it would make a lot of sense for the sequel to do likewise.  At the end of the day, the customers who want another COD will buy the next COD, and if they get desperate, they'll buy Battlefield or one of those franchises.  Not something called "Dragon Age."  I myself play a bit of COD with my mates, and a lot of games in other genres, but when I pick up something by a company called Bioware that's called "Dragon Age" I expect something that is as far removed as possible from this type of game.  (Note:  If you want to tell me they weren't trying to get the larger COD audience, perhaps you should read this:  http://www.nowgamer....-dutys-audience)

[*]I really like this particular section of the post and I think it equates pretty well with many of my tastes. In terms of games, I love a Swedish company called Paradox. They develop some of the best strategy games out there. Instead of taking the "let´s clone Warcraft" approach, they have taken a far more minoritarian road: what they do is very hardcore (tons of crunchies and stats) games based upon historical eras and real world history. From Rome to WWII, these guys excell on provinding grand strategy simulations.
[*]In fact, these guys made a monstrous game called Victoria. It had variables for everything, from inventions and technological advance in the XIX century to colonization, diplomacy, war, economics and even immigration.
[*]That game was difficult to fathom, the learning curve took time and it was not graphicaly fancy. Paradox considered it a failure in selling terms. However, due to constant pressure from the fan base, they decided to renew it and develop a second instalment. Fred, Paradox´s CEO made a bet: if the game turned profitable, he´d shave his head. He did, even before launching the game and only having the preorder figures.
[*]What I am going at is that it is far better to excell at what you do than becoming mainstream. Genuine Extreme Metal bands do not try to connect with the Lady Gaga audience, it will alienate the current fans and destroy their credibility. Bioware should not concentrate on looking nice to non-rpg audiences. Sure, taking out the crunchies or simplifiying what we look at is not that bad idea, but the idea is making easier to understand mechanics, not turning them down.

[Wozearly]

MrTijger wrote...

WardenGriff wrote...

I have similar sentiments to the OP. Look at the chart of EA's stock in the past, I notice a good bump at end of their Fiscal Year. Seems like DA2 was the cash grab this time......

Soooo...wouldnt that make it a smart business move rather than a bad one?

Not necessarily, if it damages a franchise that would have otherwise made more money in the long-run, unless short-term renevue requirements trumped everything else.

I hasten to add there is no evidence that this *has* happened to Dragon Age, and I sincerely hope it doesn't...but on a personal note, DAO made me pre-order DA2 without a second's hesitation. Hell, KOTOR pretty much had me sold into looking at every game Bioware ever does, but DAO reaffirmed that belief with a vengeance.

If DA2 was the first Bioware game I'd ever played, I'd be wondering why there was so much hype about them...I mean, its 'good', but its not 'amazing'.

[Dagiz]

From VG charts, looks like across all three platforms the game is over a million copies sold.  

http://gamrreview.vg...e=dragon age II

PC  SALES :

http://gamrreview.vg.../dragon-age-ii/

XBOX  SALES

http://gamrreview.vg.../dragon-age-ii/

PS3 SALES

http://gamrreview.vg.../dragon-age-ii/

I think the demis of the franchise is simply not an accurate statement or to even be hinted at.  1 million copies across all three platforms sold.  What's intersting is that thye graph out sales....huge bump first week and then kinda leveling off.  I'd be interested, if I had the time - maybe I'll make the time - to do a chart comparison of like games. 

What's ridiculous is that Pokeman is on top across all platforms at nearing 100million units sold....that is just...ugh. 

Modifié par Dagiz, 01 avril 2011 - 06:32 .

[Shatterkiss]

The last sales reports I've seen (no idea how reliable they are) say that DA2 has already fallen behind DAO in sales on a week by week basis. Stronger first week sales, but they dropped so fast it's looking like DA2 will sell far fewer copies than DAO.

[skyrend]

Dagiz wrote.... 

What's ridiculous is that Pokeman is on top across all platforms at nearing 10million units sold....that is just...ugh. 

Well, I guess we know the demographic Bioware will cater to in DA3.

[AkiKishi]

Dagiz wrote...

From VG charts, looks like across all three platforms the game is over a million copies sold.  

http://gamrreview.vg...e=dragon age II

PC  SALES :

http://gamrreview.vg.../dragon-age-ii/

XBOX  SALES

http://gamrreview.vg.../dragon-age-ii/

PS3 SALES

http://gamrreview.vg.../dragon-age-ii/

I think the demis of the franchise is simply not an accurate statement or to even be hinted at.  1 million copies across all three platforms sold.  What's intersting is that thye graph out sales....huge bump first week and then kinda leveling off.  I'd be interested, if I had the time - maybe I'll make the time - to do a chart comparison of like games. 

What's ridiculous is that Pokeman is on top across all platforms at nearing 10million units sold....that is just...ugh. 

A million for a AAA title is not good.

You obviously know nothing about Pokemon. Pokemon is everything DA2 wanted to be for beginners while still having one of the deepest "character" systems in an RPG.

Think I'm joking ? Look up how many Pokemon FAQs there are on gamefaqs.

[Maconbar]

Statulos wrote...

Ronin2006 wrote...


[*]


[*]Trying to appeal to the masses.  I believe that they were thinking that if they make the game as accessible as possible, then you open up the biggest potential fanbase.  While at a basic business/marketing perspective this makes sense , it would be pretty naive to think of the gaming market in such a simple manner.  People who play videogames come from a diverse range of ages and backgrounds, and they don't all share the same interests.  The biggest pool of people in the videogame market would indeed appear to come from the COD or FPS audience, but this is not who should be targetted for a game that is a successor to DA O.  One of the reasons for the success of DA O was the concept of product differentiation.  (Where a product is deliberately different from it's competitors and in doing so is able to capture a unique and particular market segment.  Think of it as a bit of a 'niche' product)  DA O successfully brought in a number of fans who most likely weren't looking for a simple COD type of experience, and it would make a lot of sense for the sequel to do likewise.  At the end of the day, the customers who want another COD will buy the next COD, and if they get desperate, they'll buy Battlefield or one of those franchises.  Not something called "Dragon Age."  I myself play a bit of COD with my mates, and a lot of games in other genres, but when I pick up something by a company called Bioware that's called "Dragon Age" I expect something that is as far removed as possible from this type of game.  (Note:  If you want to tell me they weren't trying to get the larger COD audience, perhaps you should read this:  http://www.nowgamer....-dutys-audience)

[*]I really like this particular section of the post and I think it equates pretty well with many of my tastes. In terms of games, I love a Swedish company called Paradox. They develop some of the best strategy games out there. Instead of taking the "let´s clone Warcraft" approach, they have taken a far more minoritarian road: what they do is very hardcore (tons of crunchies and stats) games based upon historical eras and real world history. From Rome to WWII, these guys excell on provinding grand strategy simulations.

[*]In fact, these guys made a monstrous game called Victoria. It had variables for everything, from inventions and technological advance in the XIX century to colonization, diplomacy, war, economics and even immigration.

[*]That game was difficult to fathom, the learning curve took time and it was not graphicaly fancy. Paradox considered it a failure in selling terms. However, due to constant pressure from the fan base, they decided to renew it and develop a second instalment. Fred, Paradox´s CEO made a bet: if the game turned profitable, he´d shave his head. He did, even before launching the game and only having the preorder figures.

[*]What I am going at is that it is far better to excell at what you do than becoming mainstream. Genuine Extreme Metal bands do not try to connect with the Lady Gaga audience, it will alienate the current fans and destroy their credibility. Bioware should not concentrate on looking nice to non-rpg audiences. Sure, taking out the crunchies or simplifiying what we look at is not that bad idea, but the idea is making easier to understand mechanics, not turning them down.

I love EUIII, sadly since I shifted to Win 7 I can't get it to run. Gave up on it.

[Alex Kershaw]

Nice thread

[Dagiz]

A million for a AAA title is not good.

You obviously know nothing about Pokemon. Pokemon is everything DA2 wanted to be for beginners while still having one of the deepest "character" systems in an RPG.

Think I'm joking ? Look up how many Pokemon FAQs there are on gamefaqs.

Honestly, you are comparing Pokemon to DAII......

really?   at any rate, it took DA:O about five months to reach 3.2million sales.  And if you look at the data from initial release, which can be viewed and compared to DA:O, DAII  actually did better in the first week. 

That being all said, what does it mean in long term?    Not much really.  Unless you do a week by week comparison at the five month mark when DA:O reached 3.2million in sales.  It's WAY to early to say its going to be a commercial flop or success as there is not enough data out there.  And there are other factors what games is it being compared to.  Comparing it to say WoW or Pokemon - well that's not really an adequate comparison.  Putting against Fallout:NV or say Witcher when that comes out, well now we have a more adequate way of comparing - though with the Witcher it's really not since (and I admit I may be 100% wrong on this) I believe it's PC  only...correct me if I  am wrong please.