516 réponses à ce sujet

[mesmerizedish]

Shiny Things wrote...

So after just 3 weeks they've already made millions less than DAO.  Let's say EA gets 3/4 of that 4.2 mill.  They're still down $3,203,100.  Over just 3 three weeks.  The discrepancy is only going to grow larger as the weeks go on.

And dont forget that with less copies sold means less DLC that can be sold so they're gonna lose out on even more money there.

At the same time, DAII probably cost hella less than Origins to develop.

[jds1bio]

Shiny Things wrote...

lostcustmer wrote...

da2 made 35 million in 3 weeks with a development phase under 2 years.
dao made 36 million in 3 weeks with a development phase over what - 6 years?

that makes it a success in the eyes of bioware. and boy, da3 will be worse.

WHOA THAR BUDDY

Your math is WAAAAAAAY off.

So just to quickly note

914395 total for DAO

843215 for DA2

Difference of 71180

Now
obviously EA doesnt get every penny of the $60 price tag. But since
we'll never know exactly how much of that they get, here's the total
amount of money difference for the entire $60 to chew on.

$4,270,800

So after just 3 weeks they've already made millions less than DAO.  Let's say EA gets 3/4 of that 4.2 mill.  They're still down $3,203,100.  Over just 3 three weeks.  The discrepancy is only going to grow larger as the weeks go on.

And dont forget that with less copies sold means less DLC that can be sold so they're gonna lose out on even more money there.

Um, digital PC sales aren't included.  Also, DA:O didn't sell for $60 on PC.  Also, you're accounting for the revenue side of things but leaving out the expenses side.  Six years of time and expenses vs. two years = four years of development money not spent when comparing DA:O to DA:2.

How much is four years of development time and expenses in dollars?  Even a poor estimate of 50 people at $75,000 annually for four years = $15 million dollars NOT spent, or in other words, saved. 

[jds1bio]

daemon1129 wrote...

Otterwarden wrote...

lostcustmer wrote...

da2 made 35 million in 3 weeks with a development phase under 2 years.
dao made 36 million in 3 weeks with a development phase over what - 6 years?

that makes it a success in the eyes of bioware. and boy, da3 will be worse.

So you think that slaughtering the cash cow for its meat will be considered a success by Bioware?

Who cares when you can make enough money out of this.  All Bioware need to do now is release DA3 in 2 years and they still make a profit.  .  What this stat show is that with only 2 years development phase, we made more profit, so why waste 6 years a game when you could be maximizing profit?  We can rant and hate all we want, I swear DA3 will still sell well enough to be cosider a success.  At the end of the day, the companies still wins, consumer loses.

If you don't buy DA3, then you keep your money and you don't lose it.  If you enjoyed DA2, and buy and enjoy DA3, then you have enjoyment for your money and you don't feel you lost anything.  So how does the consumer lose?

[AlexXIV]

Alot of the sales are based on wrong assumptions of the customers. So one would have to wonder how a DA3 sells. What I gather from this forum, at least half of the customers are unhappy. If this forum is representative. We don't really know how many people are unhappy and probably only find out with the DA3 sales, because if they are unhappy they will be more careful next time.

[88mphSlayer]

Shiny Things wrote...

lostcustmer wrote...

da2 made 35 million in 3 weeks with a development phase under 2 years.
dao made 36 million in 3 weeks with a development phase over what - 6 years?

that makes it a success in the eyes of bioware. and boy, da3 will be worse.

WHOA THAR BUDDY

Your math is WAAAAAAAY off.

So just to quickly note

914395 total for DAO

843215 for DA2

Difference of 71180

Now
obviously EA doesnt get every penny of the $60 price tag. But since
we'll never know exactly how much of that they get, here's the total
amount of money difference for the entire $60 to chew on.

$4,270,800

So after just 3 weeks they've already made millions less than DAO.  Let's say EA gets 3/4 of that 4.2 mill.  They're still down $3,203,100.  Over just 3 three weeks.  The discrepancy is only going to grow larger as the weeks go on.

And dont forget that with less copies sold means less DLC that can be sold so they're gonna lose out on even more money there.

DAO for consoles was discounted pretty heavily during the black friday/holiday 2009 shopping season... i know i picked up my copy for 360 for $44 a few weeks after it came out

[mesmerizedish]

AlexXIV wrote...

Alot of the sales are based on wrong assumptions of the customers. So one would have to wonder how a DA3 sells. What I gather from this forum, at least half of the customers are unhappy. If this forum is representative. We don't really know how many people are unhappy and probably only find out with the DA3 sales, because if they are unhappy they will be more careful next time.

I think people on this forum tend to care a lot more than "normal people."

[orbit991]

jds1bio wrote...

daemon1129 wrote...

Otterwarden wrote...

lostcustmer wrote...

da2 made 35 million in 3 weeks with a development phase under 2 years.
dao made 36 million in 3 weeks with a development phase over what - 6 years?

that makes it a success in the eyes of bioware. and boy, da3 will be worse.

So you think that slaughtering the cash cow for its meat will be considered a success by Bioware?

Who cares when you can make enough money out of this.  All Bioware need to do now is release DA3 in 2 years and they still make a profit.  .  What this stat show is that with only 2 years development phase, we made more profit, so why waste 6 years a game when you could be maximizing profit?  We can rant and hate all we want, I swear DA3 will still sell well enough to be cosider a success.  At the end of the day, the companies still wins, consumer loses.

If you don't buy DA3, then you keep your money and you don't lose it.  If you enjoyed DA2, and buy and enjoy DA3, then you have enjoyment for your money and you don't feel you lost anything.  So how does the consumer lose?

He's reffering to the loss of polish and quality and the lesser availability of well made products, unless one doesnt mind then, then no, that person wont loose.

[captain.subtle]

Wasn't EA hoping like millions of units sold? Anyone remember the exact numbers?

[moilami]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Shiny Things wrote...

So after just 3 weeks they've already made millions less than DAO.  Let's say EA gets 3/4 of that 4.2 mill.  They're still down $3,203,100.  Over just 3 three weeks.  The discrepancy is only going to grow larger as the weeks go on.

And dont forget that with less copies sold means less DLC that can be sold so they're gonna lose out on even more money there.

At the same time, DAII probably cost hella less than Origins to develop.

But why the game cost $60 then? The right price would had been 10€.

Anyway, not going to happen again I pay of sub par product premium.

[astrallite]

Otterwarden wrote...

lostcustmer wrote...

da2 made 35 million in 3 weeks with a development phase under 2 years.
dao made 36 million in 3 weeks with a development phase over what - 6 years?

that makes it a success in the eyes of bioware. and boy, da3 will be worse.

So you think that slaughtering the cash cow for its meat will be considered a success by Bioware?

It would be for EA. Grab the booty from the sinking ship and then buy another one.

[astrallite]

jds1bio wrote...

Shiny Things wrote...

lostcustmer wrote...

da2 made 35 million in 3 weeks with a development phase under 2 years.
dao made 36 million in 3 weeks with a development phase over what - 6 years?

that makes it a success in the eyes of bioware. and boy, da3 will be worse.

WHOA THAR BUDDY

Your math is WAAAAAAAY off.

So just to quickly note

914395 total for DAO

843215 for DA2

Difference of 71180

Now
obviously EA doesnt get every penny of the $60 price tag. But since
we'll never know exactly how much of that they get, here's the total
amount of money difference for the entire $60 to chew on.

$4,270,800

So after just 3 weeks they've already made millions less than DAO.  Let's say EA gets 3/4 of that 4.2 mill.  They're still down $3,203,100.  Over just 3 three weeks.  The discrepancy is only going to grow larger as the weeks go on.

And dont forget that with less copies sold means less DLC that can be sold so they're gonna lose out on even more money there.

Um, digital PC sales aren't included.  Also, DA:O didn't sell for $60 on PC.  Also, you're accounting for the revenue side of things but leaving out the expenses side.  Six years of time and expenses vs. two years = four years of development money not spent when comparing DA:O to DA:2.

How much is four years of development time and expenses in dollars?  Even a poor estimate of 50 people at $75,000 annually for four years = $15 million dollars NOT spent, or in other words, saved. 

Yes it did.

[hex23]

VGChartz isn't accurate. Neither is NPD. For the millionth time.

I haven't played "DA 2", so I don't have any interest in defending it. But if you're going to criticize the game, don't use sales as some kind of focal point. Because unless the numbers come directly from EA or Bioware, they ain't accurate.

Also no offense to anyone but there is too many damn arm chair accountants in this thread. Did you like tha game? Yes? Good. No? Sorry. How much it sold, and how much money it made/will cost Bioware is of no concern to you, nor should it be considering you can't even get accurate info on anything you're talking about.

Modifié par hex23, 02 avril 2011 - 02:05 .

[Shiny Things]

Another interesting thing especially considering these are just console numbers.

DAO sold ~70,000 more after three weeks than DA2. But DA2 was tailor made for consoles.

How'd that work out for ya Laidlaw?

The best solution all along wasnt to take the superior PC version and consolize it, it was to make the console version more like the PC one.

[Otterwarden]

astrallite wrote...

Otterwarden wrote...

lostcustmer wrote...

da2 made 35 million in 3 weeks with a development phase under 2 years.
dao made 36 million in 3 weeks with a development phase over what - 6 years?

that makes it a success in the eyes of bioware. and boy, da3 will be worse.

So you think that slaughtering the cash cow for its meat will be considered a success by Bioware?

It would be for EA. Grab the booty from the sinking ship and then buy another one.

Their business strategy does not seem to have caught up with them yet, I'll give you that. 

[Baelyn]

hex23 wrote...

VGChartz isn't accurate. Neither is NPD. For the millionth time.

I haven't played "DA 2", so I don't have any interest in defending it. But if you're going to criticize the game, don't use sales as some kind of focal point. Because unless the numbers come directly from EA or Bioware, they ain't accurate.

Also no offense to anyone but there is too many damn arm chair accountants in this thread. Did you like tha game? Yes? Good. No? Sorry. How much it sold, and how much money it made/will cost Bioware is of no concern to you, nor should it be considering you can't even get accurate info on anything you're talking about.

This. Thank you.

[borscht25]

Wait a minute?

Why would the EA/Bioware data be the most reliable? Don't they, ya know, sort of have the MOST reason to distort the data rather than the least?

[Baelyn]

borscht25 wrote...

Wait a minute?

Why would the EA/Bioware data be the most reliable? Don't they, ya know, sort of have the MOST reason to distort the data rather than the least?

He is saying the numbers they have internally. Which is why it is pointless to speculate on all of this because the only people who will ever know how much EA Bioware made off of DA2 is....EA Bioware.

Which is why there is no point in the OP posting these numbers as they don't really mean anything, they aren't official, and he has no idea how much money went into DA:O vs DA2. He also has no idea how much of each sale is profit nor does the supposed "sales figures" he posted have any data concerning PC sales and digital copies.

[dheer]

Ouch. The major reviewer scores have been lower than Origins but not awful, still in the lower 80s average.

Maybe word of mouth hurting sales?

[SeanMurphy2]

But it is also different sales periods.

DA:O was released in early November which means the following weeks are leading into Christmas.

[StuartMarshall]

Ouch. The major reviewer scores have been lower than Origins but not awful, still in the lower 80s average.

Considering major reviewers are "inclined" (*cough*) to give any AAA title a good review, low 80s is actually pretty poor as far as the critics go. On a converted scale that is almost like 40-60, which is more in line with user ratings I think.

[NvVanity]

dheer wrote...

Ouch. The major reviewer scores have been lower than Origins but not awful, still in the lower 80s average.

Maybe word of mouth hurting sales?

Usually word of mouth doesn't hurt sales that much.

[Niniva]

dheer wrote...

Ouch. The major reviewer scores have been lower than Origins but not awful, still in the lower 80s average.

Maybe word of mouth hurting sales?

Possibly. Im waiting on more solid data to really speculate.

It'd be very ironic however. Knowingly alienating fans to pursue a wider, larger market. Only to have it backfire and the player base shrink rather than grow.

Modifié par Niniva, 02 avril 2011 - 03:09 .

[_Aine_]

any second game after a successful first, will get add-on sales simply by the connection to the first. It does *not* means it is successful in historical sense, because if the second hurts the chances of the THIRD....not good. Even a mediocre second that is not an antagonist is better than a decent profit-maker than ruins any future of the franchise. Sometimes, numbers do not tell the whole tale.

[borscht25]

Baelyn wrote...

borscht25 wrote...

Wait a minute?

Why would the EA/Bioware data be the most reliable? Don't they, ya know, sort of have the MOST reason to distort the data rather than the least?

He is saying the numbers they have internally. Which is why it is pointless to speculate on all of this because the only people who will ever know how much EA Bioware made off of DA2 is....EA Bioware.

Which is why there is no point in the OP posting these numbers as they don't really mean anything, they aren't official, and he has no idea how much money went into DA:O vs DA2. He also has no idea how much of each sale is profit nor does the supposed "sales figures" he posted have any data concerning PC sales and digital copies.

I think people are making raw sale figures a much more mysterious quantity than it is. 

That said, you're very correct that it's nearly impossible to tell how those sales numbers translate into profit for the company.  And "Profit" per se is largely just a question of how you do your accounting anyway (profit has tax consequences).

But people pointing to DA2's shorter development time are being overly simplistic.  The only reason that shorter development time for the sequel paid off to whatever extent it has is BECAUSE OF the extended development time for the original.  EA might very well have had sound business reasons for "cashing in" on DA:O's already sunk costs at this point in time, but you can't pretend that this was a consequence free decision.  A different path could have allowed them to exploit those original costs over a series of sequels and who knows how much DLC.  As it stands, for better or for worse, they've pretty much blown their wad on DA:2.

[Dannybare]

borscht25 wrote...

Wait a minute?

Why would the EA/Bioware data be the most reliable? Don't they, ya know, sort of have the MOST reason to distort the data rather than the least?

You probably can get hold of EA's annual  at the end of the year, but not sure if they have to do a quartely one so you may have a bit of a wait.