667 réponses à ce sujet

[Elcariel]

craigdolphin wrote...
Which is a bit surprising given the recent giveaway of ME2 with the game. I expected to see a sales bump due to that which should have deviated the sales away from the power curve. But there was no noticable effect except, perhaps, for PS3 copies which showed nearly no decline from week 5 to week 6.

Actually, this makes complete sense to me, given how short a time ME2 has been out on the PS3. If there's any platform that is likely to see a bump in sales from this giveaway, it's the PS3.

[Cyberfrog81]

So DA2 isn't quite up to the standard I expected from BioWare, but it doesn't deserve to fail so miserably that we don't get DA3.

[Alex Kershaw]

astrallite wrote...

Alex Kershaw wrote...

Batman: Arkham Asylum is in its 86th week, is a 'hardcore' game and sold over 3 times as many as DA2 on PS3 this week...

What exactly makes Batman AA "hardcore?"

I simply meant that it wasn't a Wii Play or Kinect Adventures which is expected to sell well despite being naff.

[thesilverlinedviking]

Cyberfrog81 wrote...

So DA2 isn't quite up to the standard I expected from BioWare, but it doesn't deserve to fail so miserably that we don't get DA3.

The reason people are raging so much is because DA2 didn't live up to Bioware's sky high expectations

[Rann]

Everwarden wrote...

craigdolphin wrote...

In case folks prefer a visual representation of the sales trends quantified by VGChartz for DA:O and DA2:


{awesome graph removed for brevity's sake -- Rann}

*slow clap* Sir, I salute you. Though even seeing the failure of DA2 in graph form won't phase most fanboys. 

  But one thing to remember is that DA2 doesn't need to do as well as DA:O.  From a strictly *business* perspective, cranking out games twice as fast is better for the bottom line as long as you move more than 50% of the units than you did before and as long as the price point is much the same.  DA:O may have sold much better, but it was a longer and (presumably) much more expensive product cycle.  For all we know, the target management is hoping for may really be 70% - 75% of previous sales (or whatever), for which they'd probably still come out ahead. 

As a gamer, I'd definitely prefer the one that involved more development, scripting, etc., but as a shareholder I'd much prefer a more frequent shipping cycle with less resources involved (i.e, new areas instead of reused, etc.) even if  the reviews were slightly more negative and/or sales down a bit.  (The combat system question, OTOH, is a different dynamic, certainly more focused on demographics impact on sales rather than resources' impact on profit, although focus there then pulls focus away from other things, leading to more reuse of existing resources, etc.)  And if revenue dips too much, there's always DLC to help.

So, for example, I worry less about whether or not there is a DA3 (which others on this thread have been pondering), and instead wonder if a different balance will be struck between the cost to produce the game (i.e., resources used) vs. the profit made.  I.e., from a business point of view, is the current status "good enough," or is there thought that keeping the needle where it is will result in even more erosion for DA3 and beyond?  Given that the Bioware devs have been very candid about wanting to collect our feedback and have mentioned this a lot in various threads (and I have no reason to doubt what they say, being in the biz myself), I'd say that the position of the "needle" is probably at least being reevaluated.

My argument is admittedly totally moot for people who prefer DA2 anyway -- they are getting the best of both worlds, a compelling game for them as well as a reduced ship cycle for roughly the same cost that they paid before for DA:O.

[erynnar]

Rann wrote...

Everwarden wrote...

craigdolphin wrote...

In case folks prefer a visual representation of the sales trends quantified by VGChartz for DA:O and DA2:


{awesome graph removed for brevity's sake -- Rann}

*slow clap* Sir, I salute you. Though even seeing the failure of DA2 in graph form won't phase most fanboys. 

  But one thing to remember is that DA2 doesn't need to do as well as DA:O.  From a strictly *business* perspective, cranking out games twice as fast is better for the bottom line as long as you move more than 50% of the units than you did before and as long as the price point is much the same.  DA:O may have sold much better, but it was a longer and (presumably) much more expensive product cycle.  For all we know, the target management is hoping for may really be 70% - 75% of previous sales (or whatever), for which they'd probably still come out ahead. 

As a gamer, I'd definitely prefer the one that involved more development, scripting, etc., but as a shareholder I'd much prefer a more frequent shipping cycle with less resources involved (i.e, new areas instead of reused, etc.) even if  the reviews were slightly more negative and/or sales down a bit.  (The combat system question, OTOH, is a different dynamic, certainly more focused on demographics impact on sales rather than resources' impact on profit, although focus there then pulls focus away from other things, leading to more reuse of existing resources, etc.)  And if revenue dips too much, there's always DLC to help.

So, for example, I worry less about whether or not there is a DA3 (which others on this thread have been pondering), and instead wonder if a different balance will be struck between the cost to produce the game (i.e., resources used) vs. the profit made.  I.e., from a business point of view, is the current status "good enough," or is there thought that keeping the needle where it is will result in even more erosion for DA3 and beyond?  Given that the Bioware devs have been very candid about wanting to collect our feedback and have mentioned this a lot in various threads (and I have no reason to doubt what they say, being in the biz myself), I'd say that the position of the "needle" is probably at least being reevaluated.

My argument is admittedly totally moot for people who prefer DA2 anyway -- they are getting the best of both worlds, a compelling game for them as well as a reduced ship cycle for roughly the same cost that they paid before for DA:O.

Ah, great points! Thanks for sharing, very insightful. I always love to read from people in the biz. And I hope they are listening, that would be nice, considering I am not a shareholder. You have given me food for thought.

[Undead Nutcase]

If they do a sequel let's hope they don't go down the same road as the Call of Duty Franchise and keep adding more and more crap and changing what good they had into something worse and unbalanced.

I'm a Halo fan and all, change is good, but drastic change quickly can lead to a lot of hate. The Halo Reach audience is literally divided into two factions at this point. If you gradually add improvement,s they may be more accepted.

I think DA 2 was honestly an improvement in terms of combat, however story wise is lacked what DAO had. The game became more linear it seemed and stuck to a single path. The DA 2 world wasn't nearly as vast as the DAO world. Random encounters lacked, which was something I enjoyed greatly in DAO. Overall, the only amazing thing I can see with DA 2 are the dialogue and combat system.

[Cybermortis]

Rann wrote...

Everwarden wrote...

craigdolphin wrote...

In case folks prefer a visual representation of the sales trends quantified by VGChartz for DA:O and DA2:


{awesome graph removed for brevity's sake -- Rann}

*slow clap* Sir, I salute you. Though even seeing the failure of DA2 in graph form won't phase most fanboys. 

  But one thing to remember is that DA2 doesn't need to do as well as DA:O.  From a strictly *business* perspective, cranking out games twice as fast is better for the bottom line as long as you move more than 50% of the units than you did before and as long as the price point is much the same.  DA:O may have sold much better, but it was a longer and (presumably) much more expensive product cycle.  For all we know, the target management is hoping for may really be 70% - 75% of previous sales (or whatever), for which they'd probably still come out ahead. 

As a gamer, I'd definitely prefer the one that involved more development, scripting, etc., but as a shareholder I'd much prefer a more frequent shipping cycle with less resources involved (i.e, new areas instead of reused, etc.) even if  the reviews were slightly more negative and/or sales down a bit.  (The combat system question, OTOH, is a different dynamic, certainly more focused on demographics impact on sales rather than resources' impact on profit, although focus there then pulls focus away from other things, leading to more reuse of existing resources, etc.)  And if revenue dips too much, there's always DLC to help.

So, for example, I worry less about whether or not there is a DA3 (which others on this thread have been pondering), and instead wonder if a different balance will be struck between the cost to produce the game (i.e., resources used) vs. the profit made.  I.e., from a business point of view, is the current status "good enough," or is there thought that keeping the needle where it is will result in even more erosion for DA3 and beyond?  Given that the Bioware devs have been very candid about wanting to collect our feedback and have mentioned this a lot in various threads (and I have no reason to doubt what they say, being in the biz myself), I'd say that the position of the "needle" is probably at least being reevaluated.

My argument is admittedly totally moot for people who prefer DA2 anyway -- they are getting the best of both worlds, a compelling game for them as well as a reduced ship cycle for roughly the same cost that they paid before for DA:O.

The best guess we have off current sales trends for DA2 is that it will sell less than half the number of copies as DAO did, and probably next to no DLC compared to DAO.

the SWMMO and ME3 will probably do well enough for the rest of this year...but we'll get a much better idea of how badly the quick and dirty type of game development will affect Bioware/EA by how well the game they decide to release in the first part of 2012 does. We will probably get some idea as to the damage from pre-orders of ME3 and the first two weeks sales figures for that game too. Best guess at the moment is that both will be somewhat lower than initial expectations.

[_Aine_]

Well, then I have come to discover that I *do* have an ethical bone in my body, and that bone is attached to the quality bone. While I logically understand the math: "we don't need quality, we only need it to be good enough to make X dollars after we milk the success of the last one".... there is a deep seeded and loud inner part of me that wants to scream, rebel and pull an Anders over that. I do NOT want to support that mentality. There are a lot of games out there, and some of them don't try to be last years best thing this year. What about having a spine and making something quality because it is what you do? What about looking for a profit by giving MORE great quality instead of trying to widen your profit margin with the least expense? How about thinking of fans like people with preferences AND wallets, instead of just endless dollars? Because there IS an end to the dollars if you disappoint people enough. And while you may get second generation earnings, you may be sinking yourself beyond that generation of purchases. And frankly, you would deserve it.

Maybe we will get an online game added in the name of progress, where we can feed our mabari and play mini games with our friends, decorate a room and buy clothes to dress up our companions too! *claps insanely muttering something about Justice*

This post may contain sarcasm. 

Modifié par shantisands, 24 avril 2011 - 01:01 .

[MingWolf]

From a strictly business point of view, DA2 doesn't need to sell well, agreed. BUT, that is only in the short run. If there are quality implications with your product by you pushing out products, then sooner or later, your going to sink when other companies can put out much more quality than you can, because they will be the one who will reap all the paying customers. That bottom-line might not come falling down immediately, but it will if something isn't done about it. The one red-flag is poor sales in a current game, and if no one takes heed of the warning, then the consequences will be felt. Shareholders must be wary of this.

[Yrkoon]

Cyberfrog81 wrote...

So DA2 isn't quite up to the standard I expected from BioWare, but it doesn't deserve to fail so miserably that we don't get DA3.

And that brings us to the next question....

If DA3 ends up being just like DA2, will we  still want it?

Because that's what will happen if DA2  succeeds and becomes   a blockbuster cash cow for Bioware.    Bioware will be  utterly vindicated.  They'll look at the sales figures and say:  AHA!    The fans love what we did!   They loved the changes we made!  Full steam ahead with DA3, then.    Hey John,    Get those recycled maps ready.    Hey Mike,  make sure   More "Awesome" comes when we press a button.    And Scott, you were in charge of Act 3 in DA2....  we want you back.... do it again!

Ugh.  no thanks.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 24 avril 2011 - 01:35 .

[erynnar]

Yrkoon wrote...

Cyberfrog81 wrote...

So DA2 isn't quite up to the standard I expected from BioWare, but it doesn't deserve to fail so miserably that we don't get DA3.

And that brings us to the next question....

If DA3 ends up being just like DA2, will we  still want it?

Because that's what will happen if DA2  succeeds and becomes   a blockbuster cash cow for Bioware.    Bioware will be  utterly vindicated.  They'll look at the sales figures and say:  AHA!    The fans love what we did!   They loved the changes we made!  Full steam ahead with DA3, then.    Hey John,    Get those recycled maps ready.    Hey Mike,  make sure   More "Awesome" comes when we press a button.    And Scott, you were in charge of Act 3 in DA2....  we want you back.... do it again!

Ugh.  no thanks.

I can answer for myself only, but no. I don't want it if it comes out the same as DA2. And they need to go back to the DAO engine made for RPG.

Modifié par erynnar, 24 avril 2011 - 01:52 .

[Cyberfrog81]

Yrkoon wrote...

Cyberfrog81 wrote...

So DA2 isn't quite up to the standard I expected from BioWare, but it doesn't deserve to fail so miserably that we don't get DA3.

And that brings us to the next question....

If DA3 ends up being just like DA2, will we  still want it?

Oh, indeed. Despite all the flaws, I do actually consider it a game worth playing (kind of glad I got it cheap though).

And while I'm at it, screw DAO. You damn well know that game wasn't perfect either. The point is, BioWare can, and should, do better.

Because that's what will happen if DA2  succeeds and becomes   a blockbuster cash cow for Bioware.    Bioware will be  utterly vindicated.  They'll look at the sales figures and say:  AHA!    The fans love what we did!   They loved the changes we made!  Full steam ahead with DA3, then.    Hey John,    Get those recycled maps ready.    Hey Mike,  make sure   More "Awesome" comes when we press a button.    And Scott, you were in charge of Act 3 in DA2....  we want you back.... do it again!

Ugh.  no thanks.

Ah, a greater pessimist than I am. Such a rare thing.

1) The hard-working men and women who made the game know it has issues and I'm sure they would have done better if at all possible. They don't need to "get the message"; they're way ahead of us.
2) The people paying, the ones who decide what resources to put into a project like this.. They need to get the message, that people aren't going to accept anything (fairly or not widely regarded as) mediocre from BioWare.

Yes, I know things aren't quite so clear-cut, with good-guy developers and big evil publisher/producer types. In the end, what can we do, except point out where they went wrong and how to move forward from there. If we can even get on the same page... after all, some strange people around here still think the ME1 elevators were awesome.

[Yrkoon]

^funny, I've yet to hear Mike Laidlaw  (for example) claim, even indirectly,  that DA2 has ANY issues.  in fact, I've yet to hear him even say that he's looking to improve upon it at all.

Perhaps you're not so much a pessimist as you are.... a wishful thinker

Modifié par Yrkoon, 24 avril 2011 - 04:37 .

[Cyberfrog81]

You would, in his shoes? "Wishful thinker" indeed.

[Yrkoon]

If I was in his shoes I wouldn't be in that position to begin with. The last thing I'd *ever* do is alienate the core by making such genre-warping changes to the most  financially successful title of my company's history.  Which is what he did, and did proudly, with DA2.

And second, I'd come on here and promise improvements/corrections on even the MINOR flaws in my game. That's  just basic Professionalism  101.  You will ALWAYS come out ahead when you own up to your mistakes instead of denying their existance.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 24 avril 2011 - 05:27 .

[craigdolphin]

@ elcariel....good point about the PS3.

Rann said...
From a strictly *business* perspective, cranking out games twice as fast is better for the bottom line as long as you move more than 50% of the units than you did before and as long as the price point is much the same. DA:O may have sold much better, but it was a longer and (presumably) much more expensive product cycle. For all we know, the target management is hoping for may really be 70% - 75% of previous sales (or whatever), for which they'd probably still come out ahead.

Indeed. Shareholder value comes from profits in the short run for day traders, and in the medium term for other investors. So if the shorter development time for DA2 equates to lower costs, then lower sales could be viewed as acceptable. However, there are three aspects that this doesn't really factor in.

Were the development costs per unit time the same for both titles? I recall from one of the interviews (can't recall if it was one of the DA2 podcasts or elsewhere) that Bioware actually had more staff working on DA2 at its peak than DAO did. If my memory serves, the figure was twice as many staff. Assuming I'm not mis-remembering, that means that the total man-hours invested might be a lot closer to parity than you'd expect simply from the overall development time period.

The second aspect is the realized profit from each copy sold. The price of DA:O stayed high for much longer than DA2's has. Bioware/EA are now making quite a bit less from the fewer copies that they're still selling. That has to impact their bottom line too. And how many ME2 for PC copies will not be purchased as a result of the giveaway? (a small number I'm sure but it's likely to be non-zero IMO)

And finally: DLC. DA:O motivated a lot of gamers to buy DLC. Even though much of it turned out to have a rather dubious value proposition for a lot of those fans.

DA2 has polarized a significant portion of the 'fans'. With the prospect of selling around half the number of copies as DAO, and with (say) half of those who did purchase it being upset about the game, together with the fact that gamers have become more jaded about DLC generally, I think it all combines to suggest that the prospect of DA2 DLC making similar amounts of profits for Bioware as DAO DLC are slim.

I'm not saying these are evidence that DA2 will not make a profit, but I think they are considerations.

@ Cyberfrog81
I wish I could agree with your optimism.

To quote the unknown Bioware employee who tried reviewing his own product on metacritic:

"The immersion and combat of this game are unmatched! A truly moving and fun epic. Anything negative you'll see about this game is an overreaction of personal preference. For what it is, it is flawlessly executed and endlessly entertaining"

It seems to me that many of those at Bioware absolutely believe that DA2 was a massive improvement from DA:O. Mike Laidlaw and his like-minded buddies really don't understand the reaction, as evidenced by his post release interviews. And I'm leaning towards the idea that they're going to double-down on the idea of making DA3 more actiony....and will likely throw in Multiplayer/Co-op as another attempt to attract the COD crowd that will further alienate many of those upset about DA2.

I hope I'm wrong about that. But I most certainly am not optimistic for DA3 at this point.

[Cyberfrog81]

Yrkoon wrote...

If I was in his shoes I wouldn't be in that position to begin with. The last thing I'd *ever* do is alienate the core by making such genre-warping changes to the most  financially successful title of my company's history.  Which is what he did, and did proudly, with DA2.

Seem reality-warping to call anything in DA2 genre-warping, but maybe that's just me. Or maybe it's a topic for another thread.

And second, I'd come on here and promise improvements/corrections on even the MINOR flaws in my game. That's  just basic Professionalism  101.  You will ALWAYS come out ahead when you own up to your mistakes instead of denying their existance.

Not in this place. He'd just add fuel to the fire. I believe there will come a time to publicly acknowledge DA2's problems, as they see them. At the latest that will happen when it could potentially help sell another product.

[erynnar]

"And while I'm at it, screw DAO. You damn well know that game wasn't perfect either. The point is, BioWare can, and should, do better."--Cyberfrog81

Yeah, I keep seeing this argument by the really hardcore supporters of DA2. As if the flaws of DAO make all the glaring problems (cut and paste environments to the point of parody--and yes, DAO did reuse some too, but not nearly as badly) and rushed production of DA2 okay because DAO had problems too.

Was DAO perfect? No it wasn't, but what needed to be fixed or tweaked was a far cry to the crapload of problems presented to us in DA2 (all of which are on the official reviews and constructive criticisms threads). DAO spent years more in production and gave DA2 a solid, if imperfect base, from which to fly. Instead DA2 got reworked and given wings held together by wax, built up as something great because of DAO (but better and more awesome than DAO) which caused it to fly too close to the sun only to crash and burn (or flew too close to the expectations of the orginal DAO fanbase--PC, Xbox, and PS3 useres alike). it's epic potential lost in a firey free fall.

Sorry, but the problems of DA2 . Since almost all that DAO was, was stripped, or revamped to make it kenetic, more cinematic, hyper intensive, hack and slash, "oh look shiney" for a console port. And no I don't hate consolers, love you guys, but lets be honest it was made for consoles. And for some reason that equated to "keep it simple, stupid" or KISS to BioWare (with which I don't agree one bit). The game is fun (mages especially) but it is splendid in it's mediocrity and hardly worthy of a BioWare game.

DAO was not perfect, but it won GotY and rightfully so. DA2 had that potential, I could see it, I could feel it, but it just won't ever make it. That is the unholy, blasted, agony of it all for me. I can see what it could have/should have been. 

Edited due to spelling, and grammar! DOH!

Modifié par erynnar, 24 avril 2011 - 06:04 .

[Cyberfrog81]

erynnar wrote...


"And while I'm at it, screw DAO. You damn well know that game wasn't perfect either. The point is, BioWare can, and should, do better."--Cyberfrog81

Yeah, I keep seeing this argument by the really hardcore supporters of DA2. As if the flaws of DAO make all the glaring problems (cut and paste environments to the point of parody--and yes, DAO did reuse some too, but not nearly as badly) and rushed production of DA2 okay because DAO had problems too.

Nice try, but no. What it means is: DAO has problems, DA2 has problems. We can recognize that without putting labels on eachother, no? I'm hoping for a third game that's better than either of them.

[erynnar]

Cyberfrog81 wrote...

erynnar wrote...


"And while I'm at it, screw DAO. You damn well know that game wasn't perfect either. The point is, BioWare can, and should, do better."--Cyberfrog81

Yeah, I keep seeing this argument by the really hardcore supporters of DA2. As if the flaws of DAO make all the glaring problems (cut and paste environments to the point of parody--and yes, DAO did reuse some too, but not nearly as badly) and rushed production of DA2 okay because DAO had problems too.

Nice try, but no. What it means is: DAO has problems, DA2 has problems. We can recognize that without putting labels on eachother, no? I'm hoping for a third game that's better than either of them.

I don't see in my post that I labled you, or anyone at all. If I misconstrued your argument, I apologize, but offer that you might want to make you position a little clearer. 

So, DAO has problems...and what does that have to do with DA2's problems?  Or am I missing something there? Because, yes, DAO had it's problems. But it still was a superior game (people may still hate it, or find it has zero replayability for them, but it was superior--even if it was only due to the extra time it had to be made). I am really not being sarcastic, and I am not trying to be deliberately dense, but I don't see what one has to do with the other in terms of their individual problems.


As to hoping DA3 is better than both of them, on that we can wholeheartedly agree! I will raise my glass you and say, "hear hear!"

Love your icon pic by the way, very much!

[Elite Midget]

Hopefully EA learns not to force the DA series on a very short development cycle. Games don't have to come out annually and DA isn't Call of Duty so you can't expect minor changes and it to sell extremely well.

[erynnar]

Elite Midget wrote...

Hopefully EA learns not to force the DA series on a very short development cycle. Games don't have to come out annually and DA isn't Call of Duty so you can't expect minor changes and it to sell extremely well.

And my understanding is, once you have an engine (the most time consuming part of a game) then it can take 2-4 years to make a game (including an more involved one like DAO). So, they had the engine and put it aside to make a new engine for DA2?

They should go back to the DAO engine and try again.

[Dariuszp]

Heh... I just wait and bought Dragon Age II. I own part one with all addons,
Cost me around 20$ to buy Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age II.

DA II is crap. Even if you miss Dragon Age: Origins. I read review of some game 5 years ago when they say that one game has a bug because sometimes enemies (shooter) spawn from air because they appear to soon when player move fast.
Now game score in some reviews 9/10 or something (that what they show on main page all the time :/) when the game have this bug all around the game.

Anyway, game sell poor and THAT"S GOOD. If DA II would sell good then we could get another crap called DA III. Now if we lucky, we will get in Dragon Age 3 much improved Origins.

[Nephi_1111]

erynnar wrote...

Elite Midget wrote...

Hopefully EA learns not to force the DA series on a very short development cycle. Games don't have to come out annually and DA isn't Call of Duty so you can't expect minor changes and it to sell extremely well.

And my understanding is, once you have an engine (the most time consuming part of a game) then it can take 2-4 years to make a game (including an more involved one like DAO). So, they had the engine and put it aside to make a new engine for DA2?

They should go back to the DAO engine and try again.

I'm pretty sure that DA:O and DA2 run on the same engine, they just changed it a little for DA2.