667 réponses à ce sujet

[nopho]

Rockpopple wrote...

Well I don't want to say whether I believe the numbers or not.

What I will say is that if the numbers are true, then this is a bad thing. What I don't get is why are people celebrating? Do you not know that if it doesn't sell well, it won't get a sequel? EA will drop the franchise like a hot potato. Why do you think this is a good thing?

If you don't like DA II, fine. A lot of people don't. A lot of people do. I love DA II and I love the DA franchise. I don't want to see it go away. I don't know why so many people apparently do. Can't they just hate the game without dancing for it's misfortune?

see, i really disliked DA2 and what it stands for, some things i didn't like were design decisions, well can't make everyone happy. but most things (reused maps²², unchangeable companions armor (instead of a button to let you deside what to show) "choices" and a truckloads of others) were simply because it was a rush job to see if they can get thei money the fast way.

what i mean is, if DA2 sells good then DA3 will become an equal game, in which case DA is dead for me anyways.
but if DA2 sells bad, there is just a chance that DA franchise stops, but there is also a chance that they will just...well..start to make a good game again. DA2 selling bad is for people like me, at least a chance it will get better.


p.s. that i feel i got tricked into buying a game that wasn't close as advertised and thus feel a bit robbed may also play into for me haveing to smile when it sells bad, i admit that.

[Persephone]

Inarai wrote...

"Thanks to gamers like you, Dragon Age II is off to a great start – breaking the 1 million mark in less than two weeks and faster than Dragon Age: Origins" - Chris Priestly

1: Your numbers. They suck. Run the 2 week total sales math.

2: Your numbers are from different sources and not comparable.

3: Your numbers for the current game do not come from the same source as your numbers for DA:O. This is a red flag for the probability that you are attempting to deceive.

4: Your numbers for DA2 come from a notoriously unreliable source - it's almost as bad as using Wikipedia in academic work.

5: Digital distribution is a big thing, and you fail to include it.

Therefore: You have no credibility, nor are your conclusions believable based on the detail you've offered. Of course, I am unsurprised to see people failing to analyze "evidence" (and I use the term entirely too loosely) that supports the view they already hold.

While I wouldn't have put it quite so harshly, this is how I feel about this.

The Wikipedia reference is made of WIN, so true.

Let me add another: Believing a site so FAMOUS for its inaccuracies just because it supports how you feel about something is just as laughable as the folks who still believe Anne Boleyn had six fingers on one hand because a Catholic "historian" who had never met her said so. And many, even among her supporters (!) , still believe that she did.

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

Inarai wrote...

"Thanks to gamers like you, Dragon Age II is off to a great start – breaking the 1 million mark in less than two weeks and faster than Dragon Age: Origins" - Chris Priestly

1: Your numbers. They suck. Run the 2 week total sales math.

2: Your numbers are from different sources and not comparable.

3: Your numbers for the current game do not come from the same source as your numbers for DA:O. This is a red flag for the probability that you are attempting to deceive.

4: Your numbers for DA2 come from a notoriously unreliable source - it's almost as bad as using Wikipedia in academic work.

5: Digital distribution is a big thing, and you fail to include it.

Therefore: You have no credibility, nor are your conclusions believable based on the detail you've offered. Of course, I am unsurprised to see people failing to analyze "evidence" (and I use the term entirely too loosely) that supports the view they already hold.

*Claps slowly.  Nods.*

[TJSolo]

Let me add another: Believing a site so FAMOUS for its inaccuracies just because it supports how you feel about something is just as laughable as the folks who still believe Anne Boleyn had six fingers on one hand because a Catholic "historian" who

How famous? More famous than the inaccuracies from estimating/weighted sales that occurs with SoundScan and NPD?
I am are looking at the trend and not the exact numbers shown.

Modifié par TJSolo, 08 avril 2011 - 02:58 .

[nopho]

Persephone wrote...

Inarai wrote...

"Thanks to gamers like you, Dragon Age II is off to a great start – breaking the 1 million mark in less than two weeks and faster than Dragon Age: Origins" - Chris Priestly

1: Your numbers. They suck. Run the 2 week total sales math.

2: Your numbers are from different sources and not comparable.

3: Your numbers for the current game do not come from the same source as your numbers for DA:O. This is a red flag for the probability that you are attempting to deceive.

4: Your numbers for DA2 come from a notoriously unreliable source - it's almost as bad as using Wikipedia in academic work.

5: Digital distribution is a big thing, and you fail to include it.

Therefore: You have no credibility, nor are your conclusions believable based on the detail you've offered. Of course, I am unsurprised to see people failing to analyze "evidence" (and I use the term entirely too loosely) that supports the view they already hold.

While I wouldn't have put it quite so harshly, this is how I feel about this.

The Wikipedia reference is made of WIN, so true.

Let me add another: Believing a site so FAMOUS for its inaccuracies just because it supports how you feel about something is just as laughable as the folks who still believe Anne Boleyn had six fingers on one hand because a Catholic "historian" who had never met her said so. And many, even among her supporters (!) , still believe that she did.

well we could also just sacrafice a goat and read it's guts for numbers. or just imagine the numbers we like most. ooooooor we simply take the numbers wich will come closest to truth.

oh and p.s. as a student i can tell you from my profs that slowly but steadily wikipedia becomes a reliable source, step by step

[Persephone]

nopho wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Inarai wrote...

"Thanks to gamers like you, Dragon Age II is off to a great start – breaking the 1 million mark in less than two weeks and faster than Dragon Age: Origins" - Chris Priestly

1: Your numbers. They suck. Run the 2 week total sales math.

2: Your numbers are from different sources and not comparable.

3: Your numbers for the current game do not come from the same source as your numbers for DA:O. This is a red flag for the probability that you are attempting to deceive.

4: Your numbers for DA2 come from a notoriously unreliable source - it's almost as bad as using Wikipedia in academic work.

5: Digital distribution is a big thing, and you fail to include it.

Therefore: You have no credibility, nor are your conclusions believable based on the detail you've offered. Of course, I am unsurprised to see people failing to analyze "evidence" (and I use the term entirely too loosely) that supports the view they already hold.

While I wouldn't have put it quite so harshly, this is how I feel about this.

The Wikipedia reference is made of WIN, so true.

Let me add another: Believing a site so FAMOUS for its inaccuracies just because it supports how you feel about something is just as laughable as the folks who still believe Anne Boleyn had six fingers on one hand because a Catholic "historian" who had never met her said so. And many, even among her supporters (!) , still believe that she did.

well we could also just sacrafice a goat and read it's guts for numbers. or just imagine the numbers we like most. ooooooor we simply take the numbers wich will come closest to truth.

oh and p.s. as a student i can tell you from my profs that slowly but steadily wikipedia becomes a reliable source, step by step

Or we could use official numbers once they are released?

Wikipedia a reliable source? Step by step?

OH Maker, this is horrid.

[nopho]

Persephone wrote...

Or we could use official numbers once they are released?

Wikipedia a reliable source? Step by step?

OH Maker, this is horrid.

once they are released...and until that time shut up because the next best numbers don't fit some people?

well i guess than wikipedia is the most frequented site noone uses
did you know that wikipedia entries link to their sources?

[Persephone]

nopho wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Or we could use official numbers once they are released?

Wikipedia a reliable source? Step by step?

OH Maker, this is horrid.

once they are released...and until that time shut up because the next best numbers don't fit some people?

well i guess than wikipedia is the most frequented site noone uses
did you know that wikipedia entries link to their sources?

I do not care to use estimates and "maybes".

Yes, being frequented makes them oh SO accurate.

Yes, I know. I still prefer to read books and do proper research. Any university that grants Wikipedia any academic worth will lose all my respect in one single swoop.

[Veracruz]

wildannie wrote...

PS. I like DA2, and while there is room for improvement, it's clear that some of the criticism has been totally over the top and malicious.

Yep, and some people recycle their "rage" in any thread they can post in more than DA 2 recycles some (most) of its maps. 

EA can always say: "Hey, Bio, so finish ME 3 and then stick to MMORPGs until we dismantle you.". I want to be positive and still belive that EA is still not so bad because Activision and Kotick are out there. 

Even if sales are low, the investment in the franchise goes beyond DAO and DA 2 so I'd say that a DA 3 is quite likely to happen no matter what. How it's done and how much time and funds it's given by EA is pure speculation at this point.

[aftohsix]

Ah yes. Numbers from VGChartZ.

This discussion really is still happening?

Modifié par aftohsix, 08 avril 2011 - 03:15 .

[Night Prowler76]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

As has been discussed to death, VGCharts are always to be considered works of fiction. It's amusing so few of you are in the know.

False, they collect data from retailers.

[MingWolf]

oh and p.s. as a student i can tell you from my profs that slowly but steadily wikipedia becomes a reliable source, step by step

While I wouldn't exactly call it a reliable source, one of my former university profs had said that despite being unreliable, there is not one scholar that she knows who would ignore wikipedia altogether. Sometimes the important information is standing right there, even if its validity cannot be confirmed. For anyone who has ever written academic research papers, one would probably observe that even when comparing wikipedia to scholarly sources, wikipedia isn't always wrong. Information on wikipedia may sometimes mirror itself to that of acceptable sources and even bring up topics that the credible source may not possess. Its another tool.

Not claiming that VGChartz is accurate; its not. The only way one can determine the accuracy of sales is really to look directly at the company's income statement as opposed to statistical guesses and polling (relatively speaking, but even that can hold inaccuracies). While the accuracy of the data is questionable, at least they have a methodology in place to determine a best estimate of sales. While methods can be wrong, its probably more foolish to dismiss something just because there is not enough evidence to prove its validity.

[gingerbill]

Inarai wrote...

"Thanks to gamers like you, Dragon Age II is off to a great start – breaking the 1 million mark in less than two weeks and faster than Dragon Age: Origins" - Chris Priestly

1: Your numbers. They suck. Run the 2 week total sales math.

2: Your numbers are from different sources and not comparable.

3: Your numbers for the current game do not come from the same source as your numbers for DA:O. This is a red flag for the probability that you are attempting to deceive.

4: Your numbers for DA2 come from a notoriously unreliable source - it's almost as bad as using Wikipedia in academic work.

5: Digital distribution is a big thing, and you fail to include it.

Therefore: You have no credibility, nor are your conclusions believable based on the detail you've offered. Of course, I am unsurprised to see people failing to analyze "evidence" (and I use the term entirely too loosely) that supports the view they already hold.

i think this post sums up the OP's post . I think the OP looked around for numbers to support his theory and went with them . You might as well just make them up as these numbers are not accurate enough.

[Shatterkiss]

VGChartz may not be accurate, but they're the only source for this kind of info that I've seen. If people have links to more accurate sales figures, please post them.

[gingerbill]

gingerbill wrote...

Inarai wrote...

"Thanks to gamers like you, Dragon Age II is off to a great start – breaking the 1 million mark in less than two weeks and faster than Dragon Age: Origins" - Chris Priestly

1: Your numbers. They suck. Run the 2 week total sales math.

2: Your numbers are from different sources and not comparable.

3: Your numbers for the current game do not come from the same source as your numbers for DA:O. This is a red flag for the probability that you are attempting to deceive.

4: Your numbers for DA2 come from a notoriously unreliable source - it's almost as bad as using Wikipedia in academic work.

5: Digital distribution is a big thing, and you fail to include it.

Therefore: You have no credibility, nor are your conclusions believable based on the detail you've offered. Of course, I am unsurprised to see people failing to analyze "evidence" (and I use the term entirely too loosely) that supports the view they already hold.

i think this post sums up the OP's post . I think the OP looked around for numbers to support his theory and went with them . You might as well just make them up as these numbers are not accurate enough.

Night Prowler76 wrote...

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

As has been discussed to death, VGCharts are always to be considered works of fiction. It's amusing so few of you are in the know.

False, they collect data from retailers.

false , they collect them from very specific retailers , some of the retailers they use didnt even stock the game , some of those retailers didnt even stock WOW as they 'hadnt heard of it' . And to not include steam sale and some major retailers adds up to a waste of time.

Modifié par gingerbill, 08 avril 2011 - 03:59 .

[Night Prowler76]

I smell alot of denial in here, yes BioSheep, Im smelling you.

[gingerbill]

Night Prowler76 wrote...

I smell alot of denial in here, yes BioSheep, Im smelling you.

i tihnk your the one in denial which is obvious when your willing to accept obviously completely wrong numbers as fact . theres games that have sold over a million copies on steam alone , so ignoring steam numbers is crazy . Also ignoring the fact alot of major retialers arent included in those numbers is crazy . And as i mentioned before some of the retailers they use didnt even stock the game .

if you feel the need to prove the game is crap i suggest try a diffrent approach as this makes you look silly. At least spend some time looking at were they get there numbers from.

[Night Prowler76]

gingerbill wrote...

Night Prowler76 wrote...

I smell alot of denial in here, yes BioSheep, Im smelling you.

i tihnk your the one in denial which is obvious when your willing to accept obviously completely wrong numbers as fact . theres games that have sold over a million copies on steam alone , so ignoring steam numbers is crazy . Also ignoring the fact alot of major retialers arent included in those numbers is crazy . And as i mentioned before some of the retailers they use didnt even stock the game .

if you feel the need to prove the game is crap i suggest try a diffrent approach as this makes you look silly. At least spend some time looking at were they get there numbers from.

*wipes the tear from your cheek*, Its ok junior, it will be a better day tommorow, but you will still be in denial.

[DragonRageGT]

Yellow Words wrote...

I highly doubt that they catered DA2 specifically for the CoD fans. I can understand why people don't like DA2 but this argument I don't get. At all.

The more I play it the more I believe they had ME2 fans in mind. Or they just used the ME2 team to develop the game and that team can't do anything different from ME2!

Amazing how fan-atics may complain that it's a good thing that DA2 is totally different from Origins and not complain how some sex scenes are just Shepard/Kelly laying on the bed, or Shepard having a drink, or Shepard dialogue wheel where some of the actual spoken words have nothing to do with the chosen words in the fraking wheel! Choose "I don't like you" and get a "Now you die, bastard!" ?

I never could enjoy Fallout 3 because to me it was just Oblivion with different textures. I hate all ME2 elements plainly copied into Dragon Ages. Lack of imagination, laziness or plain delirious that it is anything better than what we had in Origins! And instead of evolving something amazing they just copied what may have worked fine for a sci-fi shooter!

nopho wrote...

see, i really disliked DA2 and what it stands for, some things i didn't like were design decisions, well can't make everyone happy. but most things (reused maps²², unchangeable companions armor (instead of a button to let you deside what to show) "choices" and a truckloads of others) were simply because it was a rush job to see if they can get thei money the fast way.

what i mean is, if DA2 sells good then DA3 will become an equal game, in which case DA is dead for me anyways.
but if DA2 sells bad, there is just a chance that DA franchise stops, but there is also a chance that they will just...well..start to make a good game again. DA2 selling bad is for people like me, at least a chance it will get better.

p.s. that i feel i got tricked into buying a game that wasn't close as advertised and thus feel a bit robbed may also play into for me haveing to smile when it sells bad, i admit that.

I agree about the reused maps.  Even Oblivion with its lame dungeons and ruins and caves, at least used different layout for every single one of them.  OMG, I can only laugh when I remember what DA2 sewers look like, compared to The Witcher's sewers, NWN's sewers, any fraking game I can remember's sewers!

But I have absolutely no doubt that they will produce a Dragon Age 3, hopefuly with nobody left of ME2/DA2 team, except the writers but only if they are given the time to produce another epic game. (And they will still make money out of it).

I remember some threads on Origins forums where people shared how emotional they got at the end of Origins, myself included, lots of those going into tears when the game ended, but good tears in 100% of cases.  "Not all tears are evil" (Mithrandil). The only tears I can imagine someone shedding for DA 2 are from sadness and disappointment to see how can some crazy people turn a masterpiece into a generic "good" game.

[Kimberly Shaw]

What I will say is that if the numbers are true, then this is a bad thing. What I don't get is why are people celebrating? Do you not know that if it doesn't sell well, it won't get a sequel? EA will drop the franchise like a hot potato. Why do you think this is a good thing?

To answer your question, if the sales are poor because the game designers changed elements that people enjoyed with DA:O; which from the 70+ pages of criticism stickied to this forum is fair to say; then we hope that we have also voted with our dollars (not the people here, since we are all owners of the game already) to get the game back on track for DA:3. I see DA:3 as inevitable, they have put a lot of work and hype and merchandising into this franchise.

The sales in my opinion are weak (after the pre-orders and initial sales week is done) because the game got bad (for Bioware) reviews and word of mouth was that it didn't live up to hype or the first game. This may or may not be the case, maybe the sales are weak because no one wants to play RPGs anymore? I don't know. If I were Bioware, I'd find out before I started making DA:3.

[MingWolf]

I think sales will be on the weaker for this game as well. Not bad, mind-you, but definitely not at the same scale as some of Bioware's past titles. But sales can only tell you so much. They certainly don't tell you how many people really approve and disapprove the product, for example.

[nopho]

gingerbill wrote...

Night Prowler76 wrote...

I smell alot of denial in here, yes BioSheep, Im smelling you.

i tihnk your the one in denial which is obvious when your willing to accept obviously completely wrong numbers as fact . theres games that have sold over a million copies on steam alone , so ignoring steam numbers is crazy . Also ignoring the fact alot of major retialers arent included in those numbers is crazy . And as i mentioned before some of the retailers they use didnt even stock the game .

if you feel the need to prove the game is crap i suggest try a diffrent approach as this makes you look silly. At least spend some time looking at were they get there numbers from.

while i do not agreewith nightpowlers obvious trolling i disagree with your line of argumentation.
steam is not included, thats true, but is is also not for DA:O. second, they may have numbers of retailers who didn't prestock DA2 at all, but they may also have numbers of retailers who ordered too much.

the important thing is, that it starts to even out once you have enough sources, this goes as well for steam, it would be plain stupid (sorry, don't want to insult someone) to believe that say, a game, without special conditions like limited shipment (not true for an EA game) sold 50k times with retailers but 50million times over steam. vgcharts simply shows a clear trend for DA2* wich is downwards....fast. to think that everyone in the world just thinks "hey i will now for the first time buy my games from steam" is blue-eyed in my book.



p.s. i didn't answer to persephone as it wouldn't have contributed to the thread anymore, but i did not say that i can use wikipedia as a source for academic work. i just said that the profs hinted that wikipedia is a good place to get additional ideas. it links it sources like books and professional sites. helps to check if you may have missed an important or interesting part.



* given the number of retailers they get their sources from is big enough

[gingerbill]

nopho wrote...

gingerbill wrote...

Night Prowler76 wrote...

I smell alot of denial in here, yes BioSheep, Im smelling you.

i tihnk your the one in denial which is obvious when your willing to accept obviously completely wrong numbers as fact . theres games that have sold over a million copies on steam alone , so ignoring steam numbers is crazy . Also ignoring the fact alot of major retialers arent included in those numbers is crazy . And as i mentioned before some of the retailers they use didnt even stock the game .

if you feel the need to prove the game is crap i suggest try a diffrent approach as this makes you look silly. At least spend some time looking at were they get there numbers from.

while i do not agreewith nightpowlers obvious trolling i disagree with your line of argumentation.
steam is not included, thats true, but is is also not for DA:O. second, they may have numbers of retailers who didn't prestock DA2 at all, but they may also have numbers of retailers who ordered too much.

the important thing is, that it starts to even out once you have enough sources, this goes as well for steam, it would be plain stupid (sorry, don't want to insult someone) to believe that say, a game, without special conditions like limited shipment (not true for an EA game) sold 50k times with retailers but 50million times over steam. vgcharts simply shows a clear trend for DA2* wich is downwards....fast. to think that everyone in the world just thinks "hey i will now for the first time buy my games from steam" is blue-eyed in my book.



p.s. i didn't answer to persephone as it wouldn't have contributed to the thread anymore, but i did not say that i can use wikipedia as a source for academic work. i just said that the profs hinted that wikipedia is a good place to get additional ideas. it links it sources like books and professional sites. helps to check if you may have missed an important or interesting part.



* given the number of retailers they get their sources from is big enough

fair point and a sensible reply nopho , i would still not take those numbers as any sort of fact but i would agree they do show a trend . Though i think numbers from sites like steam (which grow bigger every year) are too big to ignore but i take your point . I wouldnt base a theory on numbers that are well known to be very innaccurate though.

[tariq071]

Let me get this straight..

- in this thread sales numbers are wrong and do not represent "real" (whatever that is) sale picture.

- in another thread mostly same posters are blasting review that was , in their opinion completely false, since it didn't depict this game as next coming of Jesus.

Numbers for last few games that i followed on VGCharts were fairly (i say fairly , not exactly) accurate to final sales report from publisher.

Bad numbers, bad reviews ..all lies, ..good review ..awesome button...

Someone is keep bringing up Steam,with the reason.But Steam has around 1.5 million subscribers.Unless every second or third person bought DA2(which is not happening) numbers are still not huge, based that weekly DA2 is not getting above 8-9th place on their Topsellers list.

Can someone explain to me all this logic of denial(and i mean Vulcan type of logic), but in articulated way for change, based that they are capable of doing that?I am more then happy to hear it in that manner.Off course backup your claims with numbers, any numbers.

Modifié par tariq071, 08 avril 2011 - 04:47 .

[Rockpopple]

Kimberly Shaw wrote...

What I will say is that if the numbers are true, then this is a bad thing. What I don't get is why are people celebrating? Do you not know that if it doesn't sell well, it won't get a sequel? EA will drop the franchise like a hot potato. Why do you think this is a good thing?

To answer your question, if the sales are poor because the game designers changed elements that people enjoyed with DA:O; which from the 70+ pages of criticism stickied to this forum is fair to say; then we hope that we have also voted with our dollars (not the people here, since we are all owners of the game already) to get the game back on track for DA:3. I see DA:3 as inevitable, they have put a lot of work and hype and merchandising into this franchise.

The sales in my opinion are weak (after the pre-orders and initial sales week is done) because the game got bad (for Bioware) reviews and word of mouth was that it didn't live up to hype or the first game. This may or may not be the case, maybe the sales are weak because no one wants to play RPGs anymore? I don't know. If I were Bioware, I'd find out before I started making DA:3.

BioWare doesn't operate in a bubble. If they don't get funding, the game doesn't get made. Development funds aren't handed out of charity. They're given for prior results and anticipation of future results. If this game is doing as poorly as some people really want it to, it won't matter if "BioWare learned it's lessoned" if EA decides there's no point in funding a 3rd venture in a franchise it deems as dead.

I'm not saying people can't complain about a game and bring out points that can be improved. And I'm not saying they should hope for good sales. I'm just saying cheering for poor sales is counter-intuitive, especially if the end result of those poor sales is you not getting any more Dragon Age RPG.

For people who call EA an all-powerful monster, do you really think they wouldn't kill the series if it was doing really poorly?

@ tariq071 - Oooh! Oooh! I can answer that! It's because your premise is flawed. Who's talking about DA II being the next coming of Jesus? 

In your world it seems that the people who hate the game just think it's "slightly flawed", and the people who like the game think it's perfect. Again, flawed premise. My advice: operate from a more realistic premise. Hope that helps!

Modifié par Rockpopple, 08 avril 2011 - 04:51 .