1033 réponses à ce sujet

[Night Prowler76]

MDT1 wrote...

Night Prowler76 wrote...

MDT1 wrote...

@ Sabriana

That PC's will die is also a lie to get people into buying overpriced consoles. As long as people want customizable working stations that can work independend there will be PCs (or something simmilar).
It's just that publishers prefere consoles because of copy protections and it's less effort to creat compability as you have only 2 system builds or so.
They just wish PC gaming would finally die.

I agree, the PC will never die for the high end gaming crowd, but the casual gamer doesnt want to be bothered with upgrading their unit every couple of years, and screwing around with compatibility issues etc, ( I decided to put Oblivion on my Windows 7 64 bit quad core) and it took hours to figure out why it kept crashing lol!

Console's arent really overpriced, I mean they usually have a 6-7 year lifespan, not bad for 300-500 bucks, and they dont have compatibily issues:>

What caused your Oblivion to crash? (Have also a Windows 7 64 bit quad core) ^^

Perhaps consoles seem overpriced to me because a PC is mandatory for me and all games I was interested so far were released on PC as well (except MK9). So it feels like spending 300 bucks for games I already could play on PC.

Well I would get to the character creation screen and my PC would slow to crawl, the cursor was lagging and then it would crash lol, so after a few re-installs and trying to turn down quality etc to make it easier on the PC it still wouldnt work, then finnaly I was able to see what the error code was and it was the ASAudio.ax making it crash, which is really strange, so I googled it, and went in and had to disable the music in a couple files and the game works flawlessly now.

The average person would not bother or want to go through that hassle to run a 6 year old game on their 6 month old PC hahaha, it doesnt bother me that much, but most of my friends would have gotten discouraged etc. thats why I think the consoles have taken hold:>

I understand where you are coming from totally, I play most of my games on the console, and only a few on the PC (mostly the RPG's), I like that I can squeeze the graphics out of the games on the PC for sure.

[Night Prowler76]

napushenko wrote...

so.. the whiners got what they wanted.. how sad, looks like da3 will be "save the world from blight-big evil-bad sorcerer" kind of game, exactly like 123412312 other rpg-s as obviously fans cant comprehend anything other than that as rpg.

DA2 is a cookie cutter game as well, mostly action with small inventory management, and there are loads of them out there as well, if BioWare wants DA to sell 4-5 million copies again, they will have to make it more like DAO, if they want to sell 2-3 million copies, they will make DA2 for people like you lol

It honestly sounds like you are the one who cant comprehend business in general.  So unless you are going to buy 2 million extra copies for yourself, I think its safer to assume the game might take on a more traditional aspect again.

[DSGrant]

Persephone wrote...

And I feel the same way about DAII. Only I'm a tad more protective because it got stabbed more than Caesar did when the Ides Of March rolled around. 

Caesar had it coming. As did DA2.

[Phaedros]

DSGrant wrote...

Persephone wrote...

And I feel the same way about DAII. Only I'm a tad more protective because it got stabbed more than Caesar did when the Ides Of March rolled around. 

Caesar had it coming. As did DA2.

Caesar, not so much.

[MDT1]

napushenko wrote...

so.. the whiners got what they wanted.. how sad, looks like da3 will be "save the world from blight-big evil-bad sorcerer" kind of game, exactly like 123412312 other rpg-s as obviously fans cant comprehend anything other than that as rpg.

Oh yes, trying to get rich is an innovative motivation exclusive for DA2 and was never used before or will be again in any fiction.

Modifié par MDT1, 09 mai 2011 - 12:27 .

[MDT1]

Night Prowler76 wrote...

napushenko wrote...

so.. the whiners got what they wanted.. how sad, looks like da3 will be "save the world from blight-big evil-bad sorcerer" kind of game, exactly like 123412312 other rpg-s as obviously fans cant comprehend anything other than that as rpg.

DA2 is a cookie cutter game as well, mostly action with small inventory management, and there are loads of them out there as well, if BioWare wants DA to sell 4-5 million copies again, they will have to make it more like DAO, if they want to sell 2-3 million copies, they will make DA2 for people like you lol

It honestly sounds like you are the one who cant comprehend business in general.  So unless you are going to buy 2 million extra copies for yourself, I think its safer to assume the game might take on a more traditional aspect again.

Its not so simple I'm afraid. I think EA expects to sell those 1-2 mio copies every year instead of 4-5 every 5 years.
It's also a kind of steady income and not such a big investment if the game totally fails as a longer development time doesn't ensure financial success.

Modifié par MDT1, 09 mai 2011 - 12:41 .

[LeBurns]

MDT1 wrote...

Night Prowler76 wrote...

napushenko wrote...

so.. the whiners got what they wanted.. how sad, looks like da3 will be "save the world from blight-big evil-bad sorcerer" kind of game, exactly like 123412312 other rpg-s as obviously fans cant comprehend anything other than that as rpg.

DA2 is a cookie cutter game as well, mostly action with small inventory management, and there are loads of them out there as well, if BioWare wants DA to sell 4-5 million copies again, they will have to make it more like DAO, if they want to sell 2-3 million copies, they will make DA2 for people like you lol

It honestly sounds like you are the one who cant comprehend business in general.  So unless you are going to buy 2 million extra copies for yourself, I think its safer to assume the game might take on a more traditional aspect again.

Its not so simple I'm afraid. I think EA expects to sell those 1-2 mio copies every year instead of 4-5 every 5 years.
It's also a kind of steady income and not such a big investment if the game totally fails as a longer development time doesn't ensure financial success.

Well they got away with selling what they did this time due to pre-orders and players expecting DAO2.  If DA3 follows the DA2 format I doubt they will sell the 1-2 million copies to make it worth even 12 months of developement.

[MDT1]

As far as we know DA2 already sold over 1 mio and i guess most disappointed customers did preorder (about 400k ?) and I'm sure not all of them regret that decision. That the supporters are in the minority oft the customers that bought DAO doesn't mean they are "few".
Also its not set in stone that BW can't learn from mistakes and adjust some minor annoyances so DA3 will be more accepted without really involving more effort/money.

Modifié par MDT1, 09 mai 2011 - 05:22 .

[SirShreK]

MDT1 wrote...

As far as we know DA2 already sold over 1 mio and i guess most disappointed customers did preorder (about 400k ?) and I'm sure not all of them regret that decision. That the supporters are in the minority oft the customers that bought DAO doesn't mean they are "few".
Also its not set in stone that BW can't learn from mistakes and adjust some minor annoyances so DA3 will be more accepted without really involving more effort/money.

LAte for the party?

Bioware employee Mike Laidlaw has clearly stated that they (Bioware DA2 team) don't find ANYTHING wrong with DA2 and the future direction of the game would remain the same.

Also about the 1 mil mark. You are right.

[erynnar]

neppakyo wrote...

@hallowedwarden.

I totally agree with that, it felt like hawkes family was a last minute decision. I couldn't connect with them at all, as I never got to know them. When <insert sibling> got crushed by the ogre all I did was go "meh" And the mother bit.. where did that come from?

Also, all those other points you made as well.

@Altima
I never complained about Origins at all. DA2 is my first game I've complained about on an online forum. Take it as you will, hehe.

EDIT: @ Goth.

You make a valid argument there.

All of these^.

And Nep I may be wrong, but I think Altima meant that it was due to people like you and me not going on the forums and saying what we liked and only those that whined about DAO that got us DA2. Which did not work out so well.

And yeah the story could have been epic, from fleeing with the family on.  Instead we got a disjointed mess wiht no real connection to ourselves as the player or the people or situations in the game (ie the family)

I too went, meh, when <insert sibling here> was made an ogre toy.

[Night Prowler76]

MDT1 wrote...

Night Prowler76 wrote...

napushenko wrote...

so.. the whiners got what they wanted.. how sad, looks like da3 will be "save the world from blight-big evil-bad sorcerer" kind of game, exactly like 123412312 other rpg-s as obviously fans cant comprehend anything other than that as rpg.

DA2 is a cookie cutter game as well, mostly action with small inventory management, and there are loads of them out there as well, if BioWare wants DA to sell 4-5 million copies again, they will have to make it more like DAO, if they want to sell 2-3 million copies, they will make DA2 for people like you lol

It honestly sounds like you are the one who cant comprehend business in general.  So unless you are going to buy 2 million extra copies for yourself, I think its safer to assume the game might take on a more traditional aspect again.

Its not so simple I'm afraid. I think EA expects to sell those 1-2 mio copies every year instead of 4-5 every 5 years.
It's also a kind of steady income and not such a big investment if the game totally fails as a longer development time doesn't ensure financial success.

They cant sell a DA game every year sir, they cant follow the Call of Duty model unless they hire another studio, every call of duty game has a 2 year development cycle, because there are 2 studio's making them, IW made COD2,4 MW2, Treyarch made Cod3, WAW and Black ops, now they have Raven and Sledgehammer helping whats left of IW make the next Cod game and Treyarch will release their next game in 2013.

So a yearly DA is likely not going to happen, especially with the sales number of the game, games that sell1-2 million copies actually dont make alot of money for EA and the developer's, 1 million copies sold is usually a break even point for smaller games etc.

As well, EA has pushed ME3 back to 2012, so I honestly dont think the quality of DA2 was all EA's fault, it was a combination of a number of things, I think you will see DA go to a 2 to 2.5 year dev cycle.

[erynnar]

DSGrant wrote...

Persephone wrote...

And I feel the same way about DAII. Only I'm a tad more protective because it got stabbed more than Caesar did when the Ides Of March rolled around. 

Caesar had it coming. As did DA2.

Okay that just made me laugh out loud. I know I shouldn't for several reasons (one which being I am at work and they are all looking at me funny) but I couldn't help it. It hit that dark humor funnybone...

[erynnar]

Night Prowler76 wrote...

MDT1 wrote...

Night Prowler76 wrote...

napushenko wrote...

so.. the whiners got what they wanted.. how sad, looks like da3 will be "save the world from blight-big evil-bad sorcerer" kind of game, exactly like 123412312 other rpg-s as obviously fans cant comprehend anything other than that as rpg.

DA2 is a cookie cutter game as well, mostly action with small inventory management, and there are loads of them out there as well, if BioWare wants DA to sell 4-5 million copies again, they will have to make it more like DAO, if they want to sell 2-3 million copies, they will make DA2 for people like you lol

It honestly sounds like you are the one who cant comprehend business in general.  So unless you are going to buy 2 million extra copies for yourself, I think its safer to assume the game might take on a more traditional aspect again.

Its not so simple I'm afraid. I think EA expects to sell those 1-2 mio copies every year instead of 4-5 every 5 years.
It's also a kind of steady income and not such a big investment if the game totally fails as a longer development time doesn't ensure financial success.

They cant sell a DA game every year sir, they cant follow the Call of Duty model unless they hire another studio, every call of duty game has a 2 year development cycle, because there are 2 studio's making them, IW made COD2,4 MW2, Treyarch made Cod3, WAW and Black ops, now they have Raven and Sledgehammer helping whats left of IW make the next Cod game and Treyarch will release their next game in 2013.

So a yearly DA is likely not going to happen, especially with the sales number of the game, games that sell1-2 million copies actually dont make alot of money for EA and the developer's, 1 million copies sold is usually a break even point for smaller games etc.

As well, EA has pushed ME3 back to 2012, so I honestly dont think the quality of DA2 was all EA's fault, it was a combination of a number of things, I think you will see DA go to a 2 to 2.5 year dev cycle.

2.5 years would have helped DA2 I think.

[_Aine_]

SirShreK wrote...

LAte for the party?

Bioware employee Mike Laidlaw has clearly stated that they (Bioware DA2 team) don't find ANYTHING wrong with DA2 and the future direction of the game would remain the same.

Also about the 1 mil mark. You are right.

Link?

[SirShreK]

shantisands wrote...

Link?

Can't find it on my own sis, but if you are keen I guess most people on the forum will gladly locate it for you. I am lazy enough not to bother, but just give a search online for Laidlaw + DA2 interview. It should come up.

[Night Prowler76]

shantisands wrote...

SirShreK wrote...

LAte for the party?

Bioware employee Mike Laidlaw has clearly stated that they (Bioware DA2 team) don't find ANYTHING wrong with DA2 and the future direction of the game would remain the same.

Also about the 1 mil mark. You are right.

Link?

Mike didnt say that word for word, but I think what the poster was implying, it that in most interviews, Mike deflects the question with an answer like "people are afraid of change" etc, and never really admits that their is room for improvement, except the re-use of maps etc.  Ive noticed in most of his interviews, he says "well I think" and then tells the interviewer his opinion without actually answering the question, I notice he is never on the boards anymore lol

[MDT1]

SirShreK wrote...

MDT1 wrote...

As far as we know DA2 already sold over 1 mio and i guess most disappointed customers did preorder (about 400k ?) and I'm sure not all of them regret that decision. That the supporters are in the minority oft the customers that bought DAO doesn't mean they are "few".
Also its not set in stone that BW can't learn from mistakes and adjust some minor annoyances so DA3 will be more accepted without really involving more effort/money.

LAte for the party?

Bioware employee Mike Laidlaw has clearly stated that they (Bioware DA2 team) don't find ANYTHING wrong with DA2 and the future direction of the game would remain the same.

Also about the 1 mil mark. You are right.

Perhaps you got me wrong or I you but with "adjusting minor annoyances" I ment remaining in the same direction while tweaking a bit. I'm quite aware that Mike Laidlaw thinks the only reasons to dislike DA2 is living in the past and/or being retarded.

Night Prowler76 wrote...


They cant sell a DA game
every year sir, they cant follow the Call of Duty model unless they hire
another studio, every call of duty game has a 2 year development cycle,
because there are 2 studio's making them, IW made COD2,4 MW2, Treyarch
made Cod3, WAW and Black ops, now they have Raven and Sledgehammer
helping whats left of IW make the next Cod game and Treyarch will
release their next game in 2013.

So a yearly DA is likely not
going to happen, especially with the sales number of the game, games
that sell1-2 million copies actually dont make alot of money for EA and
the developer's, 1 million copies sold is usually a break even point for
smaller games etc.

As well, EA has pushed ME3 back to 2012, so I
honestly dont think the quality of DA2 was all EA's fault, it was a
combination of a number of things, I think you will see DA go to a 2 to
2.5 year dev cycle.

Of course CoD could produce games with one team every year, but the result would mean a significant loss in quality what actually happened between DAO and DA2 imo.

Also I don't know where you get the information that 1 mio sells is the breaker.
The Witcher sold 1,2 mio times and they are quite happy with it and could actually get investors to fund a 4 year development for the next part.

Modifié par MDT1, 09 mai 2011 - 05:57 .

[SirShreK]

MDT1 wrote...
 "adjusting minor annoyances" 

I think thats where I got you wrong I guess. I am happy we are cleared up on this issue.

[SirShreK]

MDT1 wrote...

snip-the witcher-snip

=>PC only with modified (leased) engine.

=>classical RPG.

=>Debut. Europe.

=>Geralt.

Sapkowsky who?.

=>CD project who?. 

=>1 million sales!

=> profit!!!


This is off topic but I could not resist.

[Night Prowler76]

MDT1 wrote...

SirShreK wrote...

MDT1 wrote...

As far as we know DA2 already sold over 1 mio and i guess most disappointed customers did preorder (about 400k ?) and I'm sure not all of them regret that decision. That the supporters are in the minority oft the customers that bought DAO doesn't mean they are "few".
Also its not set in stone that BW can't learn from mistakes and adjust some minor annoyances so DA3 will be more accepted without really involving more effort/money.

LAte for the party?

Bioware employee Mike Laidlaw has clearly stated that they (Bioware DA2 team) don't find ANYTHING wrong with DA2 and the future direction of the game would remain the same.

Also about the 1 mil mark. You are right.

Perhaps you got me wrong or I you but with "adjusting minor annoyances" I ment remaining in the same direction while tweaking a bit. I'm quite aware that Mike Laidlaw thinks the only reasons to dislike DA2 is living in the past and/or being retarded.

Night Prowler76 wrote...


They cant sell a DA game
every year sir, they cant follow the Call of Duty model unless they hire
another studio, every call of duty game has a 2 year development cycle,
because there are 2 studio's making them, IW made COD2,4 MW2, Treyarch
made Cod3, WAW and Black ops, now they have Raven and Sledgehammer
helping whats left of IW make the next Cod game and Treyarch will
release their next game in 2013.

So a yearly DA is likely not
going to happen, especially with the sales number of the game, games
that sell1-2 million copies actually dont make alot of money for EA and
the developer's, 1 million copies sold is usually a break even point for
smaller games etc.

As well, EA has pushed ME3 back to 2012, so I
honestly dont think the quality of DA2 was all EA's fault, it was a
combination of a number of things, I think you will see DA go to a 2 to
2.5 year dev cycle.

Of course CoD could produce games with one team every year, but the result would mean a significant loss in quality what actually happened between DAO and DA2 imo.

Also I don't know where you get the information that 1 mio sells is the breaker.
The Witcher sold 1,2 mio times and they are quite happy with it and could actually get investors to fund a 4 year development for the next part.

Yes, and that would equal a loss of sales, so why exactly would they produce one every year?

Here is some info for you on development costs and where the 1 million sales figure comes into play...

In June 2009 Ubisoft reiterated that major titles for PS3/X360 cost
$20-$30 million to make and that games for the next-generation may
exceed $60 million.[5]

Nintendo's own Reggie Fils-Aime states developing games for the Nintendo DS is cheap, costing only a few thousand dollars to develop and only needing to sell 100k units to make a profit. Wii games require about $5-10 million in the average case, including marketing costs. He asserts PS3 and X360 games
need much more resources, from $20 million up to a staggering $50
million with sales of 1.3 to 1.5 million units to make money on them.

Is that enough information?

The Witcher is produced by a small independant studio, they dont need to pay royalties to EA or Activision, as well, they havent put games on consoles which also require royalties to be paid, and they have little advertising etc, they keep costs extremely low, so a million sales for an Indie game is successful and made them money, do you understand this concept?

Modifié par Night Prowler76, 09 mai 2011 - 06:46 .

[SirShreK]

Night Prowler76 wrote...

Yes, and that would equal a loss of sales, so why exactly would they produce one every year?

Here is some info for you on development costs and where the 1 million sales figure comes into play...

In June 2009 Ubisoft reiterated that major titles for PS3/X360 cost
$20-$30 million to make and that games for the next-generation may
exceed $60 million.[5]

Nintendo's own Reggie Fils-Aime states developing games for the Nintendo DS is cheap, costing only a few thousand dollars to develop and only needing to sell 100k units to make a profit. Wii games require about $5-10 million in the average case, including marketing costs. He asserts PS3 and X360 games
need much more resources, from $20 million up to a staggering $50
million with sales of 1.3 to 1.5 million units to make money on them.

Is that enough information?

The Witcher is produced by a small independant studio, they dont need to pay royalties to EA or Activision, as well, they havent put games on consoles which also require royalties to be paid, and they have little advertising etc, they keep costs extremely low, so a million sales for an Indie game is successful and made them money, do you understand this concept?

I must thank you. This was quite a read. Cheerio! 

[Night Prowler76]

SirShreK wrote...

Night Prowler76 wrote...

Yes, and that would equal a loss of sales, so why exactly would they produce one every year?

Here is some info for you on development costs and where the 1 million sales figure comes into play...

In June 2009 Ubisoft reiterated that major titles for PS3/X360 cost
$20-$30 million to make and that games for the next-generation may
exceed $60 million.[5]

Nintendo's own Reggie Fils-Aime states developing games for the Nintendo DS is cheap, costing only a few thousand dollars to develop and only needing to sell 100k units to make a profit. Wii games require about $5-10 million in the average case, including marketing costs. He asserts PS3 and X360 games
need much more resources, from $20 million up to a staggering $50
million with sales of 1.3 to 1.5 million units to make money on them.

Is that enough information?

The Witcher is produced by a small independant studio, they dont need to pay royalties to EA or Activision, as well, they havent put games on consoles which also require royalties to be paid, and they have little advertising etc, they keep costs extremely low, so a million sales for an Indie game is successful and made them money, do you understand this concept?

I must thank you. This was quite a read. Cheerio! 

You are welcome sir, sometimes I think people think every situation for every developer is the same and dont consider other factor's, they forget indie games have much less overhead etc, have a good afternoon:happy:

[veramis]

Only a few thousand dollars to develop a nintendo ds game? How?

[Night Prowler76]

veramis wrote...

Only a few thousand dollars to develop a nintendo ds game? How?

Have you ever seen a DS in action? very low graphics, the games are short, and the music isand sound is shoddy at best.,  a few comepetent programmers that are well knowledged about that platform could make games very easily,

Also, alot of DS games are made inhouse by Nintendo, they dont advertise or anything etc.

Modifié par Night Prowler76, 09 mai 2011 - 07:06 .

[MDT1]

SirShreK wrote...
Concentation of random statements

Is this supposed to explaine anything?
Also I fail to see the big differences to the development of DA2 in those random statements with one exception perhaps.

Night Prowler76 wrote...

Yes, and that would equal a loss of sales, so why exactly would they produce one every year?

Here is some info for you on development costs and where the 1 million sales figure comes into play...

In June 2009 Ubisoft reiterated that major titles for PS3/X360 cost
$20-$30 million to make and that games for the next-generation may
exceed $60 million.[5]

Nintendo's own Reggie Fils-Aime states developing games for the Nintendo DS is cheap, costing only a few thousand dollars to develop and only needing to sell 100k units to make a profit. Wii games require about $5-10 million in the average case, including marketing costs. He asserts PS3 and X360 games
need much more resources, from $20 million up to a staggering $50
million with sales of 1.3 to 1.5 million units to make money on them.

Is that enough information?

The
Witcher is produced by a small independant studio, they dont need to
pay royalties to EA or Activision, as well, they havent put games on
consoles which also require royalties to be paid, and they have little
advertising etc, they keep costs extremely low, so a million sales for
an Indie game is successful and made them money, do you understand this
concept?

Now this would actually clarify something if he stated what development time this calculation is based on. Also BW=EA

Also DA2 got over 1Mio.

Now please enlighten me further why a game franchise that sells 1,5 mio copies each year makes less profit then one that sells 3,75 every 2,5 years.
Note that I expect the development teams be roughly equal in sized just that the one with the shorter cycle has to "cut more corners".

Please don't be offended or so, its just that the limited information I have doesn't explaine jet why 1,5 mio each year isn't a valid approach if selling 3 mio each 2 years is.

Modifié par MDT1, 09 mai 2011 - 07:59 .