1033 réponses à ce sujet

[DraCZeQQ]

Volourn wrote...

If DA2 is 'lacking sales'; the blame is sequarely on DA1's shoulders. DA1 supposedly sold 3.5-4.5mil copies yet only 400k of those bothered to preorder the sequel. This tells me that while lots of people played DA1 most of them didn't like it enough to get the sequel 9heeck, most of themd din't even bother to finish DA1).

the question is ... how much people who enjoyed Origins bought it the first two weeks (not just preorders) ... another question is how much people who never played Origins bought the game first two weeks ... and in the last for people didnt like Origins how much of the bought the game after week 3 (when it was pretty clear this game is "better for them" then Origins)

[Vaern Sul]

Volourn wrote...


See... anyone can spin numbers or 'facts'.

R00fles!

One can also spin number and "facts" so one can claim potatoes are sentient. Or one can do that and, through logic, come to the conclusion that they clearly are not.

Good sir, you are claiming that potatoes are sentient.


"R00fles!"...whatever the hell that means.

[Stegoceras]

@Volourn

Your arguments and explanations are getting funnier and funnier, keep it up.

Modifié par Stegoceras, 30 avril 2011 - 04:04 .

[oldmansavage]

Valcutio wrote...

I just hope they learn from this. Gamers aren't as stupid as they assumed.

[Sphynx118]

Fanboys gonna Fanboy

[cljqnsnyc]

Honestly.

I would rather not engage some of the people that post here. I'm interested in healthy debates where reasonable people can either agree or agree to disagree over opinions, not argue endlessly and needlessly simply because some people enjoy being combative just for the hell of it.  Also, trying to make points that sometimes have no basis in logic or reality doesn't help or support an argument or statement, even if it's an opinion.

A game that most people cannot finish will generate negative buzz and terrible word of mouth, resulting in a flop, not steady sales over a long period of time and numerous awards. This isn't only a fact, it's common sense. Who is going to recommend a game they could not finish? I certainly wouldn't.

Anyway.....

Whatever views or opinions that anyone has is strictly up to them. We do not always see things the same way nor are we supposed to. With that said, there is a difference between what is considered opinion and what is considered fact.

The success of DAO isn't spin, it's a fact.

....and the results speak for themselves.

Modifié par cljqnsnyc, 30 avril 2011 - 04:44 .

[YohkoOhno]

The problem with these "week X sales" threads is that they are framed to be negative.

Most of the arguments appear to want to provoke Laidlaw and Bioware into making a "course correction". Many of the arguments are akin to "Ha Ha, you failed, now you better suck up to us fans or else you won't make any money".

The problems with this are the following. We can only see sales charts. We don't see revenue or profits or know expenses. In many cases, people are using some of Mike Laidlaw's projections of X million and passing it off as failure.

One thing to be aware of too is that my bet is most RPG fans ARE similar to CoD fans. Based on MMORPGs and their success, a lot of people aren't playing RPGs for story depth but for the combat. It's possible Bioware has seen that with the automatic metrics and thus have designed things taking that into account. I think the forum has the "hard core" audience but the bread and butter sales are from the casual audience.

That's not to say there is nothing to criticize, but all this talk of sales is probably not going to get Bioware to "apologize" for lower sales. If people are staying away from DA2, you'll probably see a course correction, but I see the creation of these threads as more or less antagonistic rather than constructive.

[abaris]

YohkoOhno wrote...

The problems with this are the following. We can only see sales charts. We don't see revenue or profits or know expenses. In many cases, people are using some of Mike Laidlaw's projections of X million and passing it off as failure.

You can be pretty sure, the sales you see aren't far off from the whole picture.

Why?

You're dealing with a business here and if these numbers were disputable, the PR department would dispute them with a vengeance. They wouldn't allow that kind of negative PR go unchallenged. Also the interviews, as I have said repeatedly, are flavored with the classic  PR ingredients of damage control. You see certain terms being used over and over again, you see half hearted excuses coupled with equally half hearted attacks, either on certain people or products.

[contown]

David Gaider wrote...

Not to suggest anything beyond this, but if one is going to compare the sales of the two games one might also wish to take into account the fact that Origins was released shortly before Christmas. Beyond that, whatever extrapolations you wish to make are up to you.

Is that what you keep telling yourselves at the office?

[YohkoOhno]

abaris wrote...



You're dealing with a business here and if these numbers were disputable, the PR department would dispute them with a vengeance. They wouldn't allow that kind of negative PR go unchallenged. Also the interviews, as I have said repeatedly, are flavored with the classic  PR ingredients of damage control. You see certain terms being used over and over again, you see half hearted excuses coupled with equally half hearted attacks, either on certain people or products.

First of all, I didn't say sales, I said Revenue and Profits, which actually matter more than sales.  You can sell half of the first game but double profits, for instance.  

I don't think the PR department would ever fight a negative sales report unless numbers were grossly wrong, but really, the only people who seem to be obsessed with the sales figures are the pissed-off members of the fan base.  Most people don't really care one way or another.

That doesn't mean that there aren't concerns, but I still see these types of threads as more or less what Woo did say was "confirmation bias".   We didn't have people obsessing about sales of the first game.  These threads aren't really neutral analysis, they are aimed at criticizing Bioware.

[AkiKishi]

YohkoOhno wrote...

The problem with these "week X sales" threads is that they are framed to be negative.

Most of the arguments appear to want to provoke Laidlaw and Bioware into making a "course correction". Many of the arguments are akin to "Ha Ha, you failed, now you better suck up to us fans or else you won't make any money".

The problems with this are the following. We can only see sales charts. We don't see revenue or profits or know expenses. In many cases, people are using some of Mike Laidlaw's projections of X million and passing it off as failure.

One thing to be aware of too is that my bet is most RPG fans ARE similar to CoD fans. Based on MMORPGs and their success, a lot of people aren't playing RPGs for story depth but for the combat. It's possible Bioware has seen that with the automatic metrics and thus have designed things taking that into account. I think the forum has the "hard core" audience but the bread and butter sales are from the casual audience.

That's not to say there is nothing to criticize, but all this talk of sales is probably not going to get Bioware to "apologize" for lower sales. If people are staying away from DA2, you'll probably see a course correction, but I see the creation of these threads as more or less antagonistic rather than constructive.

That's because they are negative.

One of things the a Bioware really needs to take on board is this. Character building and roleplaying are not the same thing. Just because someone likes character building does not mean they will like roleplaying.
This should have been more than clear from JRPGs and how little impact CRPGs made on the Japanese market.

[YohkoOhno]

This, however, I can't really agree with. RPG gamers prefer story vs. combat, where FPS gamers perfer combat vs. story. The only way to appeal to both types of gamers is to have a game that exhibits both exceptional story and exceptional combat.

Not necessarilly. Remember the more primitve RPGs? I'm talking the original Bard's Gate Trilogy, Wizardry, Ultima, etc. Story in those games was really primitive, thus combat was a big deal. RPGs are more combat oriented than you'd think. D&D started to embrace the fact that more people were interested in Combat than Story and reversed a trend that peaked with the Storytelling move that White Wolf games did to the tabletop industry.

[DraCZeQQ]

YohkoOhno wrote...

Not necessarilly. Remember the more primitve RPGs? I'm talking the original Bard's Gate Trilogy, Wizardry, Ultima, etc. Story in those games was really primitive, thus combat was a big deal. RPGs are more combat oriented than you'd think. D&D started to embrace the fact that more people were interested in Combat than Story and reversed a trend that peaked with the Storytelling move that White Wolf games did to the tabletop industry.

Thats why the best RPGs ever (PST, VtmB, BG2, F2, ...) has crappy story but awesome combat system ... right?

[abaris]

YohkoOhno wrote...


First of all, I didn't say sales, I said Revenue and Profits, which actually matter more than sales.  You can sell half of the first game but double profits, for instance.  

Sure, they're making a profit. The development time has been short enough and streamlined enough to grant that.

But its still the sales and the reputation that matters because that's what influences future titles.

And you can trust me, that any PR suit worth their money would jump at the chance of proving any of this wrong. I'm in this kind of business since 1990 and I recognize the terms being used as well as the reactions for what they are. In fact everyone can if they just look for certain key words as "being excited over .... (add empty phrase of your liking), taking the opportunity to .... (add empty phrase of your liking), being surprised by the reaction to .... (add any criticism of your liking).

[YohkoOhno]

Talon, That's not really old Wizardry, think from the early 80s. I mised Final Fantasy because I don't play consoles. I'm 41 years old, there was an era of RPGs before Bioware.

Regarding RPGs--The peak of Bioware's games happened during the peak of the storytelling period of Tabletop RPGs. In fact, people thought that Storytelling was the most important thing and criticized D&D for focusing on story over mechanics. Some thought that TSR would end up more like White Wolf.

Then came 1999 and D&D 3e. They actually started talking about builds, min-maxing, etc. They actually took inspiration from Diablo for magic items. This sort of reversed a trend in the industry. The games you mentioned came out during the peak of the TSR days. Now, ten years have passed, D&D 4e is a lot more like WoW than any of the older rules, White Wolf is not publishing anymore, etc. Meantimes, games have changed. MMORPGs have taken off, you see much more discussion about builds and DPS and other things. MMORPGs had some story, but it seems most players didn't want to fool around with that. There's movement for higher RPG story, but it seemed to get lost in these games.

I think the rise and popularity of games like Diablo, Everquest, World of Warcraft, etc, as well as the metrics and trends in gaming show that most people who liked RPGs are more into the builds and mechanics rather than the story. And the line really blurs now that gaming has mixed real-time action with RPG rules. Why worry about turns when the computer can do it?

I should say I do think story is more important, at least for me, and that's where Bioware excels. However, if it turns out 90% of Bioware's audience is more into mechanics and is actually a lot more like a shooter player than a interactive story player, I think it would be foolish business wise to ignore that. So I don't have a big problem with Laidlaw's statements. I personally wouldn't like to see that part of these games dwindle, as they would lose appeal to me, but maybe there's a hidden truth most RPG fans might not see.

Modifié par YohkoOhno, 30 avril 2011 - 06:25 .

[Tommy6860]

XxTaLoNxX wrote...

YohkoOhno wrote...

This, however, I can't really agree with. RPG gamers prefer story vs. combat, where FPS gamers perfer combat vs. story. The only way to appeal to both types of gamers is to have a game that exhibits both exceptional story and exceptional combat.

Not necessarilly. Remember the more primitve RPGs? I'm talking the original Bard's Gate Trilogy, Wizardry, Ultima, etc. Story in those games was really primitive, thus combat was a big deal. RPGs are more combat oriented than you'd think. D&D started to embrace the fact that more people were interested in Combat than Story and reversed a trend that peaked with the Storytelling move that White Wolf games did to the tabletop industry.

Oh, I do remember Wizardy, specifically Heart of the Maelstrom. And to me it was about character developement and the puzzle solving. I can however provide a counter point to those games listed... remember Final Fantasy 2, Final Fantasy 3, Dragon Warrior 1, 2, 3, Baldur's Gate, etc? Those games were story focused and combat was primative.

So there were great successful RPGs that focused on story while combat took a backseat. This isn't to say that combat wasn't still intriguing but that in not all cases should combat be the focus when it comes to modern day RPGs. I actually believe that the key to a successful title in ANY genre NOW is to balance the focus on story and gameplay.

A better example for a game that really made any combat take a backseat was Planescape: Torment. Maybe the best cRPG ever made.

Modifié par Tommy6860, 30 avril 2011 - 06:25 .

[YohkoOhno]

Yes, Planescape may be a good game, but that setting had limited appeal and was one of the settings WoTC killed with 3e. Planescape the tabletop didn't sell that well and turned off more traditional fans.

Again, some of these truths are hard to take, but I don't think we can take RPGs on faith alone--"if you build it, they will come". I think gaming is constantly changing...

[T-0pel]

Volourn wrote...

"the fact that DAO didn't have a DAO to serve as a lead in. It had to stand on it's own and speak for itself. "

Yeah, let's ignore the fact of BIO's history of being a prime game devloper for the past 10+ years. or the massive hype campaign WHICH WAS BASED ON BLOOD, GUTS, AND ACTION not role--playing.

If DA2 is 'lacking sales'; the blame is sequarely on DA1's shoulders. DA1 supposedly sold 3.5-4.5mil copies yet only 400k of those bothered to preorder the sequel. This tells me that while lots of people played DA1 most of them didn't like it enough to get the sequel 9heeck, most of themd din't even bother to finish DA1).

I'm sure you ask why DA1 has higher player ratings than DA2. That's easy to explain. Most of the people who didnt' finish DA1 just move on with their lives so only the people who finished DA1 bothered to rate it. these people are now butthurt over DA2 so now rate it low even though they actually finished DA2 themselves.

See... anyone can spin numbers or 'facts'.

R00fles!

A lot of people canceled their preorders because they saw that they were changing the game a lot.

[Tommy6860]

YohkoOhno wrote...

Talon, That's not really old Wizardry, think from the early 80s. I mised Final Fantasy because I don't play consoles. I'm 41 years old, there was an era of RPGs before Bioware.

Regarding RPGs--The peak of Bioware's games happened during the peak of the storytelling period of Tabletop RPGs. In fact, people thought that Storytelling was the most important thing and criticized D&D for focusing on story over mechanics. Some thought that TSR would end up more like White Wolf.

Then came 1999 and D&D 3e. They actually started talking about builds, min-maxing, etc. They actually took inspiration from Diablo for magic items. This sort of reversed a trend in the industry. The games you mentioned came out during the peak of the TSR days. Now, ten years have passed, D&D 4e is a lot more like WoW than any of the older rules, White Wolf is not publishing anymore, etc. Meantimes, games have changed. MMORPGs have taken off, you see much more discussion about builds and DPS and other things. MMORPGs had some story, but it seems most players didn't want to fool around with that. There's movement for higher RPG story, but it seemed to get lost in these games.

I think the rise and popularity of games like Diablo, Everquest, World of Warcraft, etc, as well as the metrics and trends in gaming show that most people who liked RPGs are more into the builds and mechanics rather than the story. And the line really blurs now that gaming has mixed real-time action with RPG rules. Why worry about turns when the computer can do it?

I should say I do think story is more important, at least for me, and that's where Bioware excels. However, if it turns out 90% of Bioware's audience is more into mechanics and is actually a lot more like a shooter player than a interactive story player, I think it would be foolish business wise to ignore that. So I don't have a big problem with Laidlaw's statements. I personally wouldn't like to see that part of these games dwindle, as they would lose appeal to me, but maybe there's a hidden truth most RPG fans might not see.

You make some really good points there and your timeline analogies I can totally associate with. I am nearly 51 years old and played the tried and true table-top D&D games from the mid 1970s through the early eighties. I even used to do the text over network messaging systems where I worked in the early eighties playing D&D. Then when the IBM and then MAC personals started taking off, is when the digital age of RPGs began to change the scope of the gameplay. Combat graphics were added and I even didn't care for it, but I was enthralled with graphical gameplay and became hooked because it added a visual element. Still though, Origins showed me that an RPG type from long ago that appeals to me, though I have this fear that may have been the last.

[YohkoOhno]

I think you are missing my point Talon. You are ignoring the state of gaming from the 1980s. There were a decade of RPGs back then, all with some complex turn based mechanics, yet with paper-thin stories that had massive appeal.

Now in the 1990s, story became important.

In the 2000s, we got experimental and move away from the tabletop paradigm. Gaming both on table-top and in computers changes--we got more cinematic with Computer ones, and we got less story-top-heavy in the tabletop market. The rise of the hybrids like Deus Ex and other games took over.

But what is the appeal of the RPG, is it the mechanics or the story? Both or Neither? I think both are important, but it could be that story manages less than mechanics in the big picture. I pointed out tabletop RPGs to show that all these are based on trends. And it's quite possible--especially since Bioware now has in-game metrics--that (hypothetically speaking) 90% of first-time gamers skip the story and go to combat, while only 10% care about the story.

Note that I am not saying this is true (and I definately don't think that it's a 90/10 case if it is), but I think there's some evidence that story is not that important in the experience. It would disappoint me if that was the case, but I suspect the CoD and Assassin's Creed audience (AC is a wonderful game that feels like an RPG to me) have a lot more in common with Bioware's audience than not.  (And obviously story is important in those games too.)

Modifié par YohkoOhno, 30 avril 2011 - 06:46 .

[Tommy6860]

YohkoOhno wrote...

Yes, Planescape may be a good game, but that setting had limited appeal and was one of the settings WoTC killed with 3e. Planescape the tabletop didn't sell that well and turned off more traditional fans.

Again, some of these truths are hard to take, but I don't think we can take RPGs on faith alone--"if you build it, they will come". I think gaming is constantly changing...

I agree, and it may shift back forth forever; we can go on and on with those assumptions.  Planescape only had limited appeal because of the very hardcore PnP DnD player refusal to accept change to graphics, which does limit the imagination and fantasy interaction, and that was a valid point. When I went to PC gaming, some of them would not join as they felt the game was being ruined. Some went with the change. I am not that hardcore, but I have serious limits to what I define as being an RPG , especially when I consider the history I have with it. You may be correct in that times change when I consider most younger players are indoctrinated (for want of a better word) to grapihical images of gaming style more than table top board games. Hell, even those TPBGs are made into video games.

Modifié par Tommy6860, 30 avril 2011 - 06:55 .