219 réponses à ce sujet

[Shatterkiss]

Oh, holy hell!  This was nicely formatted when I typed it.


XBOX sales pre week for DA2:

Week/Americas/Japan/EMEAA/Worldwide/Running Total


1 92,492 N/A 100,016 392,508 392,508
2 96,235 N/A 32,662  128,897  521,405
3 43,444 N/A 18,291   61,735   583,140

XBOX sales per week for DAO:

1 243,262 12,860 79,819  335,941 335,941
2 132,395 3,240   37,595  173,230 509,171
3 70,961   1,561   23,818   96,340   605,511

Comparing sales of the two games by percentage of sales each week compared to first week sales is pretty interesting.  DA2 dropped to 33% the first week, and the second week was under 16% of first week sales.  DAO second week sales were over 51% of first week sales, and third week sales were over 28% of first week sales.


PS3 for DA2:

Week/Americas/Japan/EMEAA/Worldwide/Running Total
1 110,539 N/A 52,871 163,410 163,410
2 34,198 N/A 27,012 61,210 224,620
3 20,068 N/A 15,387 35,455 260,075


PS3 for DAO:


1 112,887 39,756 3,017 155,660 155,660
2 58,460 11,726 2,118 72,304 227,964
3 42,782 5,333 32,805 80,920 308,884


The PS3 sales show a similar drop.  Second week sales were 37.4% of first week sales, and third week was at 21.7%.  DAO second week sales were at 46.4%, and third week were at about 52%.  Weird week...

PC for DA2 (no DAO numbers for comparison)


1 89,198 N/A 54,632 143,830 143,830
2 27,446 N/A 10,556 38,002 181,832
3 17,161 N/A 9,004 26,165 207,997


Can't do a comparison, but DA2 on the PC dropped to 26.4% and third week sales were at 18.2%.

Interestingly, the 360 sales have dropped the most.  All three platforms have fallen much faster than they did with DAO, and total sales have now fallen under DAO sales for all three platforms.

Modifié par Shatterkiss, 01 avril 2011 - 06:55 .

[AkiKishi]

Dagiz wrote...
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.  

Not directly, that would be an insult to Pokemon.

DA had very good word of mouth that kept sales up. DA2 has the opposite. If retailers are selling the game off at bargain prices after 3 weeks do you really think they are going to reorder the game in large numbers?

Well Pokemon is only on one system so in theory it should do less well than DA2
Your really not getting the point with Pokemon at all though are you ? Actually try looking beyond the cutesy at what is at work under the hood.

[Sejborg]

Cybermortis wrote...

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.

Well. If it was already made and ready to be implemented, then why haven't they fixed and patched it yet?
Seems suspicious. <_<

[BeljoraDien]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Not directly, that would be an insult to Pokemon.

DA had very good word of mouth that kept sales up. DA2 has the opposite. If retailers are selling the game off at bargain prices after 3 weeks do you really think they are going to reorder the game in large numbers?

Well Pokemon is only on one system so in theory it should do less well than DA2
Your really not getting the point with Pokemon at all though are you ? Actually try looking beyond the cutesy at what is at work under the hood.

Thank you...

Pokemon has a deep, tactical system you can invest 100's of hours into... battles that actually require strategy... classic dungeon crawling that requires preperation... and it updates graphics/features without completely changing the damn system around when making a sequel. Dragon Age could learn a lot from Pokemon.

@Shatterkiss
Good work copy/pasting/formatting... I was planning on doing that, but just could not get up the motivation... It shows that DA2 is ALREADY falling behind DA:O in total sales by the 3rd week, and on CONSOLES of all things.

[captain.subtle]

Cybermortis wrote...

After my first playthrough I found the 'awesome' button on the PC.

It was labelled 'Exit Game'.

Really? I thought it was: uninstall.exe.

I tragically played it on xbox. 

[Cybermortis]

Sejborg wrote...

Cybermortis wrote...

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.

Well. If it was already made and ready to be implemented, then why haven't they fixed and patched it yet?
Seems suspicious. <_<

They are intending to release one large patch to deal with all the major issues at once. They probably feel that there might be a risk of a patch for the auto-attack problem causing problems with the larger one, which would either require testing to make sure - which would delay the large patch - or crossing their fingers and hoping they wouldn't end up having to make yet another patch.

[Cybermortis]

captain.subtle wrote...

Cybermortis wrote...

After my first playthrough I found the 'awesome' button on the PC.

It was labelled 'Exit Game'.

Really? I thought it was: uninstall.exe.

I tragically played it on xbox. 

On the consoles the awesome button is on the console itself.

It is marked 'Eject Disk'.

Some people who've bought online seem to have even found the 'Ultimate awesome button' on the webpages of the retailer they used.

It was marked 'Full refund' 


(Glad to see at least one person gets my strange sense of humour)

[Merci357]

Cybermortis wrote...

Sejborg wrote...

Cybermortis wrote...

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.

Well. If it was already made and ready to be implemented, then why haven't they fixed and patched it yet?
Seems suspicious. <_<

They are intending to release one large patch to deal with all the major issues at once. They probably feel that there might be a risk of a patch for the auto-attack problem causing problems with the larger one, which would either require testing to make sure - which would delay the large patch - or crossing their fingers and hoping they wouldn't end up having to make yet another patch.

Part of the problem, at least that's my guess, is, that you can add only a finite amount of patches to consoles. I've honestly no idea how high or low this limit is, or if it's even pratical to reach it. But my guess would be, they want at least an option for a patch left, to make a future DLC work, or whatever that requires a patch down the road with possible console firmware updates.

[Shatterkiss]

Yeah, DA2 is already 3.7% lower on the XBOX, and 15.8% lower on the PS3. I wish I had data on the PC sales of DAO to compare those.

[Spooky81]

Agree with OP, especially on first four points. They should give him Mike Laidlaws job, lol.

Just because DA2 may be producing higher volume of sales over DAO, it wont compensate for the damage done to BioWare's rep. Especially if the terrible development and design standards that soured DA2 defines who and what the company is becoming.

Modifié par Spooky81, 01 avril 2011 - 07:39 .

[Shatterkiss]

Spooky81 wrote...

Agree with OP, especially on first four points. They should give him Mike Laidlaws job, lol.

Just because DA2 may be producing higher volume of sales over DAO, it wont compensate for the damage done to BioWare's rep. Especially if the terrible development and design standards that soured DA2 defines who and what the company is becoming.

DA2 isn't producing higher sales.  All indications are that sales totals will be quite a bit lower than DAO sales.  That doesn't bode well for DLC sales. 

[Cutlass Jack]

The sales figures only tell half the tale though. DA2 had a much shorter development time, which in turn means it cost them less to make it and could recoup that cost sooner. So a slight decrease in sales at 1/5th the development costs might be actually pretty good from that 'business perspective' we all seem to be masters of.

[Merci357]

Shatterkiss wrote...

Spooky81 wrote...

Agree with OP, especially on first four points. They should give him Mike Laidlaws job, lol.

Just because DA2 may be producing higher volume of sales over DAO, it wont compensate for the damage done to BioWare's rep. Especially if the terrible development and design standards that soured DA2 defines who and what the company is becoming.

DA2 isn't producing higher sales.  All indications are that sales totals will be quite a bit lower than DAO sales.  That doesn't bode well for DLC sales. 

But it might generate a higher profit regardless of units sold. We neither know DA:O's budget, not that of DA2. But DA2 was two years in development, while DA:O was five? seven?. Might indicate DA2's cost was lower, would be my guess.

As for the future - no damage is permanent to most of us, that could be rectified with a great game. But I guess many would simply say no to another mediocre one.

[Cybermortis]

Projected figures for DA2 compared to DAO over six months are given here; http://www.huliq.com...ceed-45-million

DAO is predicted to have had 3 million sales in the first six months, with DA2 having been predicted to get 3.25 million in six months.

If DA2 keeps dropping down the chart I somehow doubt it will do that well.

There is a DAO sales chart for the PS3 here; http://gamrreview.vg...on-age-origins/


The first thing to catch my eye was the mention in the first link that figuring out sales figures for DA2 would be difficult, due to the nature of the pre-orders/release of the game. This is something I, and I think a few other people have noted. Basically a heck of a lot of people bought the game through pre-order without being able to read user comments about it.

Note; UK sales of DA2 may well prove to be lower than in the US - after taking into account the different market sizes - due to the game being released a week later. This might well have allowed people to read the reviews from US players, and therefore made people avoid the game.

[Spooky81]

Shatterkiss wrote...

Spooky81 wrote...

Agree with OP, especially on first four points. They should give him Mike Laidlaws job, lol.

Just because DA2 may be producing higher volume of sales over DAO, it wont compensate for the damage done to BioWare's rep. Especially if the terrible development and design standards that soured DA2 defines who and what the company is becoming.

DA2 isn't producing higher sales.  All indications are that sales totals will be quite a bit lower than DAO sales.  That doesn't bode well for DLC sales. 

Think i read an incorrect post, but the point on damage to image still stands.  If sales do end up lower than DAO, hope that gets the message across that DA2 is a failed experiment.

[ScotGaymer]

Spooky81 wrote...


Think i read an incorrect post, but the point on damage to image still stands.  If sales do end up lower than DAO, hope that gets the message across that DA2 is a failed experiment.

Considering that DA2 is doing worse than Fable 3 (here in the UK) then I think its fair to say that DA2 has NO chance of outselling even Jade Empire (Bioware's worst selling game prior to DA2) never mind DAO (which is their BEST selling game ever).

In case no one guessed. I think Fable 3 sucks.

[Dagiz]

Spooky81 wrote...

Shatterkiss wrote...

Spooky81 wrote...

Agree with OP, especially on first four points. They should give him Mike Laidlaws job, lol.

Just because DA2 may be producing higher volume of sales over DAO, it wont compensate for the damage done to BioWare's rep. Especially if the terrible development and design standards that soured DA2 defines who and what the company is becoming.

DA2 isn't producing higher sales.  All indications are that sales totals will be quite a bit lower than DAO sales.  That doesn't bode well for DLC sales. 

Think i read an incorrect post, but the point on damage to image still stands.  If sales do end up lower than DAO, hope that gets the message across that DA2 is a failed experiment.

Well whether it failed or not, depends on what they were looking for.  None of us really knows what they have as a target for a success.  We can make guesses and try to infer from sales figures and the like but we just don't know.  Now, what I will say is that even if people consider it a failed experiment, its not necessarily a bad thing.  What sucks is that those that feel its a failed game paid money and therefore its hits a little harder and of course there are people that are going to flood to the forums and let their displeasure known.

That being said, the basic tenet in a customer service orgnization is that if something is a positive experience, people only tell about 3-5 people.  If they have a negative experience they tell 10-12 people.  So, we'll wait and see.  Projections are fun and as cyber pointed out - sales are actually predicted to be higher....which is very different than what you hear on the boards.

There is also a geographical difference and I think that needs to be taken into account.  One reason I used vgchartz was because of the worldwide view of games. 

You know, for what it's worth, Bioware has done a great job with almost all their titles.  So I'll give them the benefit of the doubt rather than individuals who post "I am done with them they suck they ruined my game and they suck".

On Jade Empire - Xbox sales total were 700,000 units.  the pc version I don't know, but DAII  is well on its way to surpassing that mark in total sales if it hasn't already for total units sold.  Unless JE sold over 300,000 units for the PC, it surpassed that title. 

[skyrend]

Sacrificing the makings of a long-term successful IP for an instant profit now? Real smart.

DA2 will definitely sell less than DA:O with the mixed reviews and bad word of mouth it's been getting. I barely saw anything bad in gaming media about DA:O while the reviews are mixed on DA2, and the majority of it is negative.

[MrTijger]

Spooky81 wrote...

Think i read an incorrect post, but the point on damage to image still stands.  If sales do end up lower than DAO, hope that gets the message across that DA2 is a failed experiment.

Sales does not equate to profit directly, EA/Bioware might consider the sales for DA 2 perfectly adequate given the far shorter development cycle.

If the, ahem, experts here would think for 5 minutes instead of pressing the awesome button they'd realize that Bioware could actually produce 3 games (at this pace) for every DAO, even if those games sold half of what DAO sold a piece they'd come out far ahead.
THAT is the reality of business, nothing else, and at the end of the day the people who run EA/Bioware have only one concern, they are obligated by law to do whatever they can to generate profit for the shareholders.

Modifié par MrTijger, 01 avril 2011 - 08:19 .

[bzombo]

to speak from a business perspective, you need to have a perspective from outside these forums. this is only a few thousand people on the forums. very small sample size compared to the millions who play. many just register on the bsn to get content and track their character, not chat with each other. it's good business sense to appeal to a larger audience, not a smaller one. i don't want the dragon age franchise over-simplified, but i also see that overly complicated mechanics will keep many potential customers away. judging ea based on what they do with da is wrong. their core products are madden and the sims. da, mass effect, and many other games are solid franchises, but not the heart of ea. say what you want about ea, but they're not the giant in the industry because they suck at business decisions.

[Chuvvy]

All good points. 4 in particular stands out, for the simple fact that I'm a narcissist and I have views on it that you didn't sum up. If you try to appeal to everyone, you appeal to no one. People don't have a single destination mindset. No one wants one game to give them everything, that's boring. I love the battlefield series, but I don't want a battlefield RPG, developed by Bioware, released by Valve, published by EA, online by Dice, marketing by Activision, DLC by Blizzard and musical components by Harmonics. Because it would be ****. Developers should carve out a niche and stick with it, sure, you're not going to get everyone, but it's better to have a handle full of devoted fans that will stick with you no matter what then a large group of casual players that will move on.

[topster88]

I agree with the OP 100%.

Well put.

[Horus Blackheart]

Having just read the entire thread I agree with the sentiments expressed by the op. I understand the objective at the end of the day Is for EA to make a profit and grow/ make more games and so on. What I object to Is the use of meta data an an excuse to over simplify, When I play a shooter I want to play the best most engaging shooter the development team can make. I don't want every other type of game mechanic haphazardly thrown about in some vain attempt to chase the white whale of universal appeal. Does any one remember deus ex invisible war? That was an object lesson in what not to do. The difference is that team knew they had sacrificed their vision for sales.
It was something they lamented being swayed by meta data and losing sight of what really resonated with the fanbase. Its regretful that the industry has such a selective memory for things that don't work.

I used the shooter example just to highlight i do play those types of games but when i play an RPG i want an rpg exp that sucks me in on its own merits not because there's a tone of retrofitted focus group inspired half-baked concepts that are little more than a distraction.
AT the end of the day the best that can come out of it is that the game feels hollow, not good not bad just there.

[Morroian]

Ronin2006 wrote...

I personally find a lot of the business decisions behind this game to be mind-boggling stupid and shortsighted.  I honestly believe that if they wanted to make a profit from this series, and in the long term, then they are really going about it the wrong way.  If I was a shareholder in a company that is moving in the direction that EA/Bioware is heading, then I would sell my shares ASAP because companies that follow this kind of business strategy tend not to last.

A lot of your points are actually irrelevant to Bioware being bought by EA.

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)

People have overreacted to Mike interviews. ANyone who expects a developer to criticise their game a few weeks after release is living in fantasyland.

Ronin2006 wrote...

[*]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 

Many people would be wrong. Sebastian is clearly extraneous to the core game. Nothing is missing.

Ronin2006 wrote...

[*] and that it was designed in part to sell more DLC. 

Bioware were moving in a dlc direction since before the EA takeover.

Ronin2006 wrote...

[*]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. 

I agree it needed more development time or resources.

Ronin2006 wrote...

[*]"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. 

Combat could be just as tactical as DAO if you wanted it to be.

Ronin2006 wrote...

[*]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! 

The DRM is more mild than DAO and more mild than most major releases, they cannot be criticised on this front.

[Horus Blackheart]

Um dao has a basic disk check Morroian not a mandatory server handshake (the fact it happens once is irrelevant) Your statement is just plain inaccurate.