1033 réponses à ce sujet

[YohkoOhno]

True, I agree with you there.

The point (which I got distracted from), is that aiming for a larger audience may not be as bad as you think, which is why I think we get distracted from people using sales arguments and saying "don't go after X audience". I think the game is selling less for several reasons, and yes, I think the corner-cutting was part of that, but we don't have all the statistics to make those conclusions.

[Steppenwolf]

There's nothing wrong with wanting to expand your audience. As an artist I want as many people to enjoy my work as possible. It's just how you go about it, what new group you're after, and what you're offering that determines your success or failure. DA2 failed because it went after the wrong audience while alienating Origin's audience and didn't deliver the goods. It improved some things from Origins, without a doubt, but story-wise and choice-wise it didn't deliver. Hopefully Bioware learns that narrowing the focus of their titles is not progression.

[CaimDark]

David Gaider wrote...

Despite the competition, it's simply a fact that games receive a huge boost during the Christmas season.

Then why didn't Bioware release DA2 in the Christmas season if it's so confident launching in the Christmas season is a huge boost? It would be win-win for everyone! Bioware would get their "huge boost" and us gamers would get a game that wasn't rushed in 18 months.

[DSGrant]

David Gaider wrote...

Despite the competition, it's simply a fact that games receive a huge boost during the Christmas season.

That and the fact that Origins also sold awesomely because it was an awesome game.

I doubt that kind of information is really what you're after, however, so I'll leave you to your discussion.

I think it only fair that if you're going to point out the X-Mas sales boost factoring into the relative sales numbers between Origins and DA2, you should also mention that approximately 400k of DA2's total sales were due to pre-orders (primarily from your Origins fans), a sales advantage that Origins did not have when it made its debut.

The sales comparison is somewhat moot however, since I'm sure you guys already hit black on your ROI for DA2 given its much shorter development cycle. Nevertheless, I think the point to be taken from this information is that although DA2 may have successfully met your financial metrics (i.e., it was profitable), it shouldn't be regarded as a success compared to Origins, and that your core fanbase expects more from a studio that is generally regarded as THE industry leader of the RPG genre.

Modifié par DSGrant, 01 mai 2011 - 12:48 .

[nopho]

CaimDark wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

Despite the competition, it's simply a fact that games receive a huge boost during the Christmas season.

Then why didn't Bioware release DA2 in the Christmas season if it's so confident launching in the Christmas season is a huge boost? It would be win-win for everyone! Bioware would get their "huge boost" and us gamers would get a game that wasn't rushed in 18 months.

thats where the fun part starts, because i love to speculate.

my money is on, that money is the reason.
according to here:
www.joystiq.com/2011/02/02/ea-incurs-322-million-loss-in-q3-22-of-employees-in-low-cost/
EA lost 322million in the quarter before this one (which will end soon). so i guess that EA naturally knew that before the end of that quarter, maybe even in december or november last year or even earlier. but as far as i heared, will check up on that, EA had losses prior to that.

now trying to protect their shares they wanted some games which would sell well to released this quarter to make up for it. now on the bioware front they had 3 possibilities, ME3, SW:TOR, DA2.
ME3 is/was maybe too far from being ready for release to be published.
SW:TOR is imo all the good hope for bioware as the MMO market is huge so they wanted to protect that and maybe had some work to do, as i read somewhere (wont link, it's in grman) that word even got to george lucas that a bioware member said the new MMO has nothing exciting to offer except being totally voiced, so i guess they take all the time they can get to make it appealing to people.

DA:2... well DA:O sold great so i guess it was the only game bioware had to offer which would guaranty x+million sales (guess they thought it would ensure 2-3million) within a quarter.
so my theory is that DA2 was a pawn sacrifice


edit: changed a small part, will look out how EA developed over the last year to fit with DA2's announcement date

Modifié par nopho, 01 mai 2011 - 01:20 .

[Foolsfolly]

See, nopho. You're getting dangerously close to the "You don't want to know how the sausage is made" territory.

I don't pretend to believe that quarterly reports have no role on release dates....I just hate seeing the numbers of it. Knowing EA took a 300+ million dollar loss in the last quarter.....I don't want to hear that.

Modifié par Foolsfolly, 01 mai 2011 - 01:25 .

[Foolsfolly]

Damn right I don't. I'm the consumer. My contact with the behind the scenes stuff should remain with the game.

....and net posts from devs!

[nopho]

well, i checked back and saw that DA2 was announced around 17th August 2010, so the bad quarter was at best just the reason to not postpond the release until the game was done. (what actually is a vailable theory for me as i otherwise can not explain to me why DA2 wasn't given the time it needed)

sadly i am not that good with reading american-financial revenue reports, wich can btw be found here:

investor.ea.com/financials.cfm

and more closer

investor.ea.com/releasedetail.cfm


bigedit:

so people, i am no native english speaker so please do not hang me if i got the information wrong, but after checking:

investor.ea.com/releasedetail.cfm
investor.ea.com/releasedetail.cfm
investor.ea.com/releasedetail.cfm
(should open 3 seperate taps, the last 3 quarterly income reports)

it looks like EA made:
end june 2010: gain 96millions
end september 2010: loss 201millions (this be the time DA2 release was announced)
end december 2010: loss 322millions

the next report will mostly tell people how much they made until end of march, so it will not include the month of april (i think) in wich must of the sales figures posted here take place.

p.s. i am well aware that i might have made failures analyzing the given data, but i do that for my own interest, i do not claim to be EA's financial analyst, i just try to understand why things went as they went and draw my own conclusions for myself, i do not claim to be right.

Modifié par nopho, 01 mai 2011 - 02:24 .

[Boiny Bunny]

Indeed, EA have made reasonably sized net losses recently. That's extremely bad for a company of their size and position within the industry.

[Rebecca Black likes DA2]

XxTaLoNxX wrote...

Boiny Bunny wrote...

Indeed, EA have made reasonably sized net losses recently. That's extremely bad for a company of their size and position within the industry.

Well what can you expect when you release garbage like Need for Speed: Hot Pursuit Underground 15 and even worse... Command and Conquer 4?

And even worse... Dragon Age 2.

[Rebecca Black likes DA2]

XxTaLoNxX wrote...

Boiny Bunny wrote...

Indeed, EA have made reasonably sized net losses recently. That's extremely bad for a company of their size and position within the industry.

Well what can you expect when you release garbage like Need for Speed: Hot Pursuit Underground 15 and even worse... Command and Conquer 4?

And even worse... Dragon Age 2.

[zorp]

nopho wrote...

well, i checked back and saw that DA2 was announced around 17th August 2010....

Actually, the release date was set way before that date. Already in the Awakening expansion there was a slip with the date 02.01.2011 included as a teaser. And in July DAII was announced for release jan-Mars 2011 by Bioware.

And I don't think the quartery results were the key deciding the release date but the fact that the financial year for EA ends end of march.

Thet had to get it out before the end of the financial year to get the revenue in the annual report.

But you are right that the poor financial results is probably what decided the short development time.

[Wivvix]

Siradix wrote...
Is Gaider trying to make us compare it to Awakening? They were both released March.

Which if we did, for all intents and purposes, would be just as bad for DA2 as Origins.
Awakening was a far more endearing continuation of Dragon Age than DA2.

David Gaider wrote...

I'm just saying that if one is looking for data to serve as proof of anything other than confirmation bias, you might want to take more factors into account. I recognize that some folks are going to take any statement by a developer that isn't a mea culpa as some kind of "denial of the truth", but I'd say we're well aware of how DA2 is selling and how much of a success or failure that is for our company and Dragon Age's future potential. Whether the lesson we've learned is the one you think it should be will remain to be seen, I guess. Hopefully so.

"Take more factors into account". Why would you introduce extraneous factors into a dataset, merely to complicate statistical analysis further? That sounds like an inherently bad idea.

To some extent you're also admitting that DA2's failures were multifaceted, a point which many would agree with.

If Bioware is well aware of how DA2 is selling and how that equates to "success" and "failure", then why have we heard so little acknowledgement of this? Bioware representatives haven't wasted a single opportunity to issue "denial of truth" statements, demonstrating great selectivity of feedback. 
Nobody at Bioware has convincingly demonstrated that they have internalised the feedback from the Dragon Age community. The issues with DA2 have been superficially acknowledged like footnotes of a lengthy conversation. There's been no acknowledgement of pre-release statements about the "core team" driving changes to delivery in DA2 which ultimately failed to garner approval, and whether that will be under the microscope in consideration of Dragon Age 3.

It's almost indicative enough, Gaider's attitude, that he'd even suggest this was an exercise in seeking confirmation bias. No real lessons will be learned from DA2, not by this "core team". They're too arrogant to actually listen to the people who buy their games anymore.

[Paeyne]

I have a hard time believing that the fiscal year dictated the release date of DA2, only because an extra $35-50M in their pocket doesn't really do anything for them.

EA currently holds $2B in cash and ZERO debt. That is substantially more than most companies can boast. That is the main reason why it is still considered a viable company despite horrible net losses over the last three years.

It is true that EA has had huge revenue problems. (I think their overall net loss has been about 14% over that period) but even if DA2 flew out the doors it wouldn't even begin to make up for EA's current problems.

Neither has the reaction to DA2 harmed EA in any real way. Their stock at $20 is currently trading within spitting distance of their year high, up from $15 just a few short months ago. 95% of EA stock is institutionally owned (banks, mutual funds, etc.) and they could care less about DA2. Since the bubble burst three years ago EA stock plunged from $50 a share to $14. I would assume most who hold stock now figure things have bottomed out and are in it for the long haul.

Don't get me wrong, I am very much not an EA fan, but I don't think the release date was a result of cash flow issues (which they emphatically do not have) or net loss padding (of which DA2 would have had very little impact).

[agesilaj12]

I think Paeyene is pretty much right on the money.

[Speakeasy13]

One thing you need to realize about finance is that it often has little to do with actual sales, or tangible operations for that matter. It's purely a game of confidence. Which means the vast majority of a publicly traded company's asset is not culmulated thru its daily transactions, but rather thru ppl buying stocks; alternatively speaking the 300mil loss of EA most likely had NOTHING to do with underperforming games, but with the decline of market.

So will one single game like DA2 actually help EA improve its quarterly report? Definitely not directly; what EA needs is to: 1) be in the news with high profile releases and 2) have a constant cashflow (doesn't really how much as long as it's positive) that will good in the next quarterly report for its investors. One that publicist and bankers can put a positive spin on.

For that matter, DA2 underperforming, but not making a loss, won't bother EA too much. What you see in the media as a massive marketing campaign was likely not really for DA2 either, but for the EA brand. They need to convince stockholders and potential investors that they're still in the game, that's all.

[nopho]

Paeyne wrote...

I have a hard time believing that the fiscal year dictated the release date of DA2, only because an extra $35-50M in their pocket doesn't really do anything for them.

EA currently holds $2B in cash and ZERO debt. That is substantially more than most companies can boast. That is the main reason why it is still considered a viable company despite horrible net losses over the last three years.

It is true that EA has had huge revenue problems. (I think their overall net loss has been about 14% over that period) but even if DA2 flew out the doors it wouldn't even begin to make up for EA's current problems.

Neither has the reaction to DA2 harmed EA in any real way. Their stock at $20 is currently trading within spitting distance of their year high, up from $15 just a few short months ago. 95% of EA stock is institutionally owned (banks, mutual funds, etc.) and they could care less about DA2. Since the bubble burst three years ago EA stock plunged from $50 a share to $14. I would assume most who hold stock now figure things have bottomed out and are in it for the long haul.

Don't get me wrong, I am very much not an EA fan, but I don't think the release date was a result of cash flow issues (which they emphatically do not have) or net loss padding (of which DA2 would have had very little impact).

i'm not sure on that. most people who critisize on the DA2 sales, say that it mostly sold on the good name of origins. now  i will be so humble to admit that the people of EA and bioware maybe know...a trizillion things more about game development than i do.
so my guess is, and i am 95%sure of that, that the people who made the game knew they had to few time. and knew that they should postpond the release date do make it whole. (i simply refuse to believe that people who made games for over a decade thought "yeah same dungeon all the time, fans will love that" and other things)

so from this point of view good sales in the first 2-3 weeks but dropping like a stone as soon as word to mouth and...reviews from more neutral gamesites kick in were expectable. and then a release date which takes place 2-3weeks before the end of their fiscal year?
i mean that is at least enough for me to raise a sceptical eyebrow. and that is actually what i expect from their next report in 2days, telling how DA2 sold better than the original in the first two weeks and stateing the good reviews they got. (and they DO tell about their games in their reports)

plus what rose my other sceptical eyebrow some time before was that they actually announced the release of SW:TOR not before the end of EA's fiscal year (31march) what is for me an indicator that those aspects are a really big thing when it comes to deciding release dates.
sure i have no intel on neither Bioware nor EA but for me at least this theory, and i am willing to change it for a better one anytime, at least makes sense for me.

[Speakeasy13]

nopho wrote...
i'm not sure on that. most people who critisize on the DA2 sales, say that it mostly sold on the good name of origins. now  i will be so humble to admit that the people of EA and bioware maybe know...a trizillion things more about game development than i do.
so my guess is, and i am 95%sure of that, that the people who made the game knew they had to few time. and knew that they should postpond the release date do make it whole. (i simply refuse to believe that people who made games for over a decade thought "yeah same dungeon all the time, fans will love that" and other things)

so from this point of view good sales in the first 2-3 weeks but dropping like a stone as soon as word to mouth and...reviews from more neutral gamesites kick in were expectable. and then a release date which takes place 2-3weeks before the end of their fiscal year?
i mean that is at least enough for me to raise a sceptical eyebrow. and that is actually what i expect from their next report in 2days, telling how DA2 sold better than the original in the first two weeks and stateing the good reviews they got. (and they DO tell about their games in their reports)

plus what rose my other sceptical eyebrow some time before was that they actually announced the release of SW:TOR not before the end of EA's fiscal year (31march) what is for me an indicator that those aspects are a really big thing when it comes to deciding release dates.
sure i have no intel on neither Bioware nor EA but for me at least this theory, and i am willing to change it for a better one anytime, at least makes sense for me.

He has a point tho. You see short-term speculators often do not research a stock that far before or after. That cashflow for the initial weeks of DA2's release is quite more than enough the convincer for many investors.

Also both the quarterly and year-end reports only report the total sales all year round, not how spread out and consistant it was selling; hell, they only report total sales in dollars not copies. So I doubt those info you mentioned will matter at all.

[nopho]

Speakeasy13 wrote...
He has a point tho. You see short-term speculators often do not research a stock that far before or after. That cashflow for the initial weeks of DA2's release is quite more than enough the convincer for many investors.

Also both the quarterly and year-end reports only report the total sales all year round, not how spread out and consistant it was selling; hell, they only report total sales in dollars not copies. So I doubt those info you mentioned will matter at all.

sorry i cannot brain today i got the dumb. what info do you mean, i am a bit confused here?

on the occasion i guessed right what info you meant:
the report of the last quarter begins with telling the rating dead space 2 got and that it is outselling dead space 1. thats what i meant, the investors will see the reports and they will state that all is muffy-puffy nice with their products, as the release ( coincidencde or not) of DA2 was laid to a point where all would look good until the quarter ended. and nothing is wrong with makeing your investors happy, but as i said before i get the feeling that DA2 was a pawn sacrafice, just aimed at that, massively potential but not enough time.


(not telling anything about the quality of dead space 2 though, never played)

[88mphSlayer]

Rebecca Black likes DA2 wrote...

XxTaLoNxX wrote...

Boiny Bunny wrote...

Indeed, EA have made reasonably sized net losses recently. That's extremely bad for a company of their size and position within the industry.

Well what can you expect when you release garbage like Need for Speed: Hot Pursuit Underground 15 and even worse... Command and Conquer 4?

And even worse... Dragon Age 2.

Crysis 2 and Dead Space 2 were good

i just wish they weren't so focused on dethroning Activision and Call of Duty/World of Warcraft... never gonna happen