516 réponses à ce sujet

[Trogloditius]

Thanks for the posts, Otterwarden; informative and hilarious

[Ostagar2011]

Otterwarden wrote...

Rather short-sighted shareholders.  Unit sales determine market size, number of customers potentially interested in buying a follow up product.  Profitability is important to the bottom line, but if it is not sustainable it will collapse on itself.  If the profitability was obtained at the expense of the product's reputation for quality this would interest most intelligent shareholders.  After all the share price is forward looking.

Unfortunately most shareholders are not intelligent. They will sell EA stock if there is an earthquake in Japan or an uprising in Yemen, but not when some small Canadian subsiadiary fails to meet a sales target (but makes a profit even given a 15 month development cycle).

[Packofpickledpeppers]

Ostagar2011 wrote...

Otterwarden wrote...

Rather short-sighted shareholders.  Unit sales determine market size, number of customers potentially interested in buying a follow up product.  Profitability is important to the bottom line, but if it is not sustainable it will collapse on itself.  If the profitability was obtained at the expense of the product's reputation for quality this would interest most intelligent shareholders.  After all the share price is forward looking.

Unfortunately most shareholders are not intelligent. They will sell EA stock if there is an earthquake in Japan or an uprising in Yemen, but not when some small Canadian subsiadiary fails to meet a sales target (but makes a profit even given a 15 month development cycle).

Not entirely true.  A quick google search of "ea stock performance" shows that in the last two years they've dropped off steadily.  They're seeing a spike right now due to Crysis 2, but there's a lot of valleys in their line, and those valleys and their peaks keep getting lower.

[BY-TOR STORMDRAGON]

The storyline was suggestively open and very interesting for a sequel. This game felt like an expansion- to be honest! After the damage control is minimized for the disastrous glitches, NOT so much the game, I think DA:3 could bring redemption, but it will take time and a huge budget. But any extra content for DA:2 may finish Hawke's storyline, and DA:3 may never see light of day.

[Meltemph]

Well um Metacritic is crap and only Trolls post there, it does not matter! Wait for the Sales!

The merits of the game aside...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6wI0YMV9u8

Sessler on Meta Critic. I think he is right, personally. I don't think consumers realize how they are hurting themselves by making this the preference(I think the same could be said about RT, as well).

Modifié par Meltemph, 02 avril 2011 - 03:56 .

[fn_outlaw]

Packofpickledpeppers wrote...

fn_outlaw wrote...

As fans, the sales shouldn't be so much of a concern....I'll admit, it IS nice to see that the numbers (while inaccurate) are dropping...with sales falling like this, I'd almost be willing to bet that BioEA's next move is to release a patch/DLC to bolster sales. Not that I've ever bought a game based off of DLC, but I'm sure someone out there might and that seems to be enough motivation for EAoware to try and capitalize on it.

I'm sure DA2 has already paid for its dev costs and now its all royalties anyway...

It should absolutely be a concern.

No matter what corporate drivel you hear about listening to fans the only thing that speaks in the end is $$$.  For all the well deserved bashing this game gets if it would have outsold DAO, which it should have considering it had game of the year name recognition coming in, they'd have laughed.  But it's not selling anywhere near as well as DAO.  Not only that, but the nosedive it took atfer week one with their silly preorder bonuses tactics clearly shows that word of mouth about the poor quality of the game had its intended effect.

So as fans, yes we should be concerned.  Because we know now that if there is a DA3 it will not be like DA2.  We cant even really be sure there will be a DA3 TBH with the dropoff 2 took.

Same as if you liked a movie that got critically panned.  If that movie got panned and still sold well there will be a sequel.  If it got panned and no one else saw it, even if you are in a small minority that liked it, its #'s concern you because there wont be a sequel.

You can only make assumptions based off of these numbers.  Were we all thinking of buying the game, I would say "hey, knock yourselves out" but the sad truth is that many of us have already experienced that regret.  As far as whether or not there will be a DA3, only time and EA will tell.  You can venture to guess that if it comes out next year, it will follow in DA2's footsteps or worse.  If it comes out in 2013, it might be on-par with DA2 or slightly better.  Later than that and...well...you get the point.  They evaluate the features based off of stats that EA data miner gets off of the dupes who bought into the hype (myself included) and (on a slimmer margin, from what it seems) forum feedback (though I have doubts).

The only data I'm actively interested in is that which they receive from the players.  I would LOVE to see that information....sales is a moot point other than to say that its a slap in the face.  Honestly it could go either way.

1.  They listen to the feedback and improve the game through patches/build a better DA3
2.  They "streamline" more of the game.  [Won't call it dumbing down, simply because there are aspects that were improved with DA2, but the cons outweigh the pros] and we see something that will baffle even the least avid of gamers.

[Otterwarden]

Ostagar2011 wrote...

Unfortunately most shareholders are not intelligent.

I can't disagree with you there, but then I've been a less than intelligent shareholder in a couple of companies myself...

Modifié par Otterwarden, 02 avril 2011 - 04:04 .

[neppakyo]

Heh found this kinda amusing. You know that March Madness link about voting for Bioware developer that Chris posted/stickied on top of the forums?

Mojang AB is winning.

[Sphynx118]

neppakyo wrote...

Heh found this kinda amusing. You know that March Madness link about voting for Bioware developer that Chris posted/stickied on top of the forums?

Mojang AB is winning.

LOLOLOL. Go Mojang. Atleast they are upfront with their graphics.

Oh how the proud have fallen

[Trogloditius]

neppakyo wrote...

Heh found this kinda amusing. You know that March Madness link about voting for Bioware developer that Chris posted/stickied on top of the forums?

Mojang AB is winning.

Hehe.  Can't figure out how they bested the developer of Starcraft II....  Anyways, Bioware got themselves into a nice lose-lose situation there, because you know what's gonna happen if the Escapist gives Bioware developer of the year...  [dons asbestos suit]  :devil:

edit - and Bungie and Dice and Bethesda?  Did i smoke something??

Modifié par Trogloditius, 02 avril 2011 - 04:26 .

[sycophanticchallenger]

fn_outlaw wrote...

Packofpickledpeppers wrote...

fn_outlaw wrote...

As fans, the sales shouldn't be so much of a concern....I'll admit, it IS nice to see that the numbers (while inaccurate) are dropping...with sales falling like this, I'd almost be willing to bet that BioEA's next move is to release a patch/DLC to bolster sales. Not that I've ever bought a game based off of DLC, but I'm sure someone out there might and that seems to be enough motivation for EAoware to try and capitalize on it.

I'm sure DA2 has already paid for its dev costs and now its all royalties anyway...

It should absolutely be a concern.

No matter what corporate drivel you hear about listening to fans the only thing that speaks in the end is $$$.  For all the well deserved bashing this game gets if it would have outsold DAO, which it should have considering it had game of the year name recognition coming in, they'd have laughed.  But it's not selling anywhere near as well as DAO.  Not only that, but the nosedive it took atfer week one with their silly preorder bonuses tactics clearly shows that word of mouth about the poor quality of the game had its intended effect.

So as fans, yes we should be concerned.  Because we know now that if there is a DA3 it will not be like DA2.  We cant even really be sure there will be a DA3 TBH with the dropoff 2 took.

Same as if you liked a movie that got critically panned.  If that movie got panned and still sold well there will be a sequel.  If it got panned and no one else saw it, even if you are in a small minority that liked it, its #'s concern you because there wont be a sequel.

*SNIP*
They evaluate the features based off of stats that EA data miner gets off of the dupes who bought into the hype (myself included) ...
*SNIP*

This is what really has me concerned... They evaluate the data that they capture with their in game tool based on peoples play habits... but what they accomplished in this game was forcing me to set it to casual to in essence skip the combat which they RUINED by having randomly spawning enemies.

They will draw the conclusion that the combat was too "difficult" so I set the difficulty to casual which couldn't be further from the truth! I started the game on hard but I could no longer deal with the frustration of having my entire battle strategy overridden by enemies that fall from the sky.

[adneate]

This game not performing to projections shouldn't be that surprising, anyone with the ability to do basic math could tell you that a "sequel" done in 1/5th the time will not be as good of an overall product. They also decided that they wanted to play the "Split the Demographics" game, essentially going out of their way to make PC players feel as alienated from this release as possible. They believed that they could sacrifice the PC audience if they made a game that was more "friendly" for a console with a gamepad, someone somewhere guessing that the loss in PC players will be more than made up for with new console players pleased with a Mass Effect style action RPG. The problem is that they got cold feet part way through and they had already alienated most of the PC players but they didn't go far enough to make DA2's basic mechanics really compatible with an action RPG play style. This game is not a Diablo or a Torchlight, it's underlying mechanics are not all that fun or all that well suited to the type of game it wants to be. It doesn't have the looting, the clean fast flow, the sense of progression and interesting new abilities to learn. They also fundamentally misunderstood Dragon Age's appeal, it was compelling because it wasn't Mass Effect. It was a different game with a different feel trying to do different things. Console players of Origins didn't want a shallower game where they just mash the A button and get told how rad they are, they just wanted to be able to control and navigate the world with the same ease as the PC users. The same rich world, with big stakes and compelling characters to share their journey with.

Looking back to how hard they fought the community and the media in support of these changes it's both sad and insulting. They knew this game wasn't good enough, that it wasn't worthy of it's predecessor and it certainly wasn't good enough for their customers. Yet they released it anyway hoping to cash in on our love for the previous game and a sense of trust that we had built in the developer through their past products.

They have nobody to blame but themselves if they actually cared about their customers and had an ounce of respect for them they'd never have released this game.

[Ostagar2011]

sycophanticchallenger wrote...

This is what really has me concerned... They evaluate the data that they capture with their in game tool based on peoples play habits... but what they accomplished in this game was forcing me to set it to casual to in essence skip the combat which they RUINED by having randomly spawning enemies.

They will draw the conclusion that the combat was too "difficult" so I set the difficulty to casual which couldn't be further from the truth! I started the game on hard but I could no longer deal with the frustration of having my entire battle strategy overridden by enemies that fall from the sky.

I did too somewhere in Act 1, but only because I was physically sick of the immersion-shattering thin air spawns and the spasmodic, unnatural speed of things. So I wanted to just 'fast forward' to find out if at least the story and characters were any good. I shouldn't have bothered, though...

However I set my firewall to block anything DA related from accessing the network, so ET shouldn't be phoning home any time soon. You can also of course, select the "no phone home" option from the in-game settings, but this is brought to us by the same people who claimed DA2 was not given the Mass Effect treatment ... so put your faith in that settings option at your own peril.

[Otterwarden]

sycophanticchallenger wrote...

This is what really has me concerned... They evaluate the data that they capture with their in game tool based on peoples play habits... but what they accomplished in this game was forcing me to set it to casual to in essence skip the combat which they RUINED by having randomly spawning enemies.

They will draw the conclusion that the combat was too "difficult" so I set the difficulty to casual which couldn't be further from the truth! I started the game on hard but I could no longer deal with the frustration of having my entire battle strategy overridden by enemies that fall from the sky.

You make a really good point and I've wondered about this potential to misinterpret the data, drawing conclusions that may differ 180 degrees from the reality. 

[Steppenwolf]

Probably what makes me angriest about this whole thing is that there actually were some good ideas in this game. Buried. The skill trees were an improvement. The rivalry system(IMO) was an improvement. And the story could have been really good had they taken the time to flesh it out and polish it. But they rushed the game out the door and decided to try to appeal to people who never played Origins, let alone would even think about playing DA2. And the sales reflect their mistake. I just hope Bioware is able to learn their lesson and fix it for DA3 instead of just calling the franchise a failure and dropping it.

[fn_outlaw]

Otterwarden wrote...

You make a really good point and I've wondered about this potential to misinterpret the data, drawing conclusions that may differ 180 degrees from the reality. 

Like say, claiming that more people started the game (origins) than finished it because MOST people didn't like it.  Truth of the matter is that there are a NUMBER of reasons why that happened....off the top of my head, I started a character over several times to perfect their appearance.  Something not required in DA2 because of the Emporium.

BasilKarlo wrote...

Probably what makes me angriest about this whole thing is that there actually were some good ideas in this game. Buried....

THIS.
I will not argue with you there.  There was a LOT of potential in DA2.  Minor tweaks, a few additions, a literal TON of fixes (bugs) and maybe they would have had a decent game....

[Otterwarden]

fn_outlaw wrote...

Otterwarden wrote...

You make a really good point and I've wondered about this potential to misinterpret the data, drawing conclusions that may differ 180 degrees from the reality. 

Like say, claiming that more people started the game (origins) than finished it because MOST people didn't like it.  Truth of the matter is that there are a NUMBER of reasons why that happened....off the top of my head, I started a character over several times to perfect their appearance.  Something not required in DA2 because of the Emporium.

I was actually going to use that one as a personal example because there was a six month interuption in my case that had absolutely nothing to do with the game itself.  Did that simply get tagged "non-completer"?

[Packofpickledpeppers]

fn_outlaw wrote...

Otterwarden wrote...

You make a really good point and I've wondered about this potential to misinterpret the data, drawing conclusions that may differ 180 degrees from the reality. 

Like say, claiming that more people started the game (origins) than finished it because MOST people didn't like it.  Truth of the matter is that there are a NUMBER of reasons why that happened....off the top of my head, I started a character over several times to perfect their appearance.  Something not required in DA2 because of the Emporium.

Or rentals.  There's no way (or at least it would be very difficult) to beat the game in a rental, and there's no way for them to distinguish what was a rental play and what wasn't.

But in the few snippets we have heard about who they polled for the changes and why they made them it's just clear they were barking up the wrong tree.  And then the Bioware staff themselves were taunting fans here in this very forum...

and this is what happens.

[Riknas]

Lets keep in mind these sales, are not representations of the Pre-order sales.

[Gvaz]

Had they made DA:O-2 with DA2's combat (sans respawning enemies) it would have been the best game ever.

But, it wasnt. The only redeeming parts were the banter (which were written by interns, not the official writers no less!)

The art style, while some things like darkspawn were stupid, was an improvement, but a lot of the things in the game were useless. Loot only for yourself? a disjointed storyline? i could go on but it'd be like beating a dead horse at this point.

Sure it was an alright game, but since it's a direct sequel to a great game, I was expecting a LOT more. Had this been a spinoff, like it was in development (Dragon Age: Exodus was the name) I think it would have been easier to judge it as such and people would have liked it more.

[abaris]

fn_outlaw wrote...

Like say, claiming that more people started the game (origins) than finished it because MOST people didn't like it.  Truth of the matter is that there are a NUMBER of reasons why that happened....off the top of my head, I started a character over several times to perfect their appearance.  Something not required in DA2 because of the Emporium.

I did that a lot. If that counts, I'm amongst those not finishing the game. I probably have created 30 characters with different origins which I scrapped later because their looks didn't turn out to be right.

[DA Trap Star]

whether it includes PC sales or not, the Consale sales are very disappointing.
Since they claimed the game has been consolized and tailor made for Console controllers.
They were expecting more sales with DA 2 and its selling worse than Origins which was basically just a PC port.

[Packofpickledpeppers]

Riknas wrote...

Lets keep in mind these sales, are not representations of the Pre-order sales.

Yes they are.  Preorder sales are counted in there in the week 1 stats.  Now it doesnt distinguish between how many of those were preorder and how many were just bought during the week, but yeah they're counted in the total.

[Packofpickledpeppers]

DA Trap Star wrote...

whether it includes PC sales or not, the Consale sales are very disappointing.
Since they claimed the game has been consolized and tailor made for Console controllers.
They were expecting more sales with DA 2 and its selling worse than Origins which was basically just a PC port.

Exactly.  And like I said earlier it's because console users who bought DAO read that the PC version was superior.  So with DA2 they expected an experience closer to the PC version.  The PC DAO players just wanted to maintain the same quality they had and broaden the game.  What Bioware did was burn everyone.

[Packofpickledpeppers]

sycophanticchallenger wrote...

This is what really has me concerned... They evaluate the data that they capture with their in game tool based on peoples play habits... but what they accomplished in this game was forcing me to set it to casual to in essence skip the combat which they RUINED by having randomly spawning enemies.

They will draw the conclusion that the combat was too "difficult" so I set the difficulty to casual which couldn't be further from the truth! I started the game on hard but I could no longer deal with the frustration of having my entire battle strategy overridden by enemies that fall from the sky.

This also reminds me of the interview from last week, maybe two weeks ago, with Mike Laidlaw where he says they used fan feedback and data to gauge the direction of DA2, and then goes on to say DA2 was being developed before DAO was released and the awesome interviewer called him out and asked "Well if you were developing it before the first game was released how did you use user feedback?" LOL