1033 réponses à ce sujet

[Night Prowler76]

MDT1 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?

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

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".

So you are making up numbers out of your arse so that they back up your own argument, ok I will play...the development teams arent going to be the same size obviously, like I said, 2 full studio's are required to release a Cod game on a yearly basis. Now they are up to to 3 studio's working on the next COD and Treyarch will be doing the one after that, so thats 4 studio's in total working to put out COD games every year...

The DA2 team simply does not have the resources to do a game in 1 year, it took 18 months for DA2 and it was lacklustre, so they would almost need 2x the employee's to make the game in 1 year.

It doesnt matter what you "expect", there is the real world, and the then there is the fantasy world that you apparently live in, you can make up numbers all you like, but that doesnt make it reality, remember DA2 didnt sell 1.5 million copies in a year, it sold 1.5 million copies in an "18 month development cycle".

[MDT1]

Night Prowler76 wrote...

So you are making up numbers out of your arse so that they back up your own argument, ok I will play...the development teams arent going to be the same size obviously, like I said, 2 full studio's are required to release a Cod game on a yearly basis. Now they are up to to 3 studio's working on the next COD and Treyarch will be doing the one after that, so thats 4 studio's in total working to put out COD games every year...

The DA2 team simply does not have the resources to do a game in 1 year, it took 18 months for DA2 and it was lacklustre, so they would almost need 2x the employee's to make the game in 1 year.

It doesnt matter what you "expect", there is the real world, and the then there is the fantasy world that you apparently live in, you can make up numbers all you like, but that doesnt make it reality, remember DA2 didnt sell 1.5 million copies in a year, it sold 1.5 million copies in an "18 month development cycle".

OK it sold 1.5 mio in 1.5 years (but is still selling even if not so much). Even you stated games that make 1.5 mio sells make profit.

So I still cant figure out why this concept doesn't make profit from EA's perspective.
And shorter development means less investment means less risk which just makes it even more interesting for them.
I also clearly mentioned that if CoD would release one game each year with one team it would suffer a loss in quality because I'm quite aware that they could not put the same effort in each game that way (or double the team size which is nearly the same as two teams).

I asked for additional info as the set in the article is obviously incomplete. In the real world you need to base expectations on a complete set of numbers so other people can follow your conclusions and if you don't have a complete set it actually proves nothing.

And before stating something about how pumping out low quality products would effect the company reputation remember we are talking about EA in the end.

This is not the aproach i would like bioware to take on DA I just don't see why EA could not choose it.

Modifié par MDT1, 09 mai 2011 - 08:34 .

[Gotholhorakh]

MDT1 wrote...

OK it sold 1.5 mio in 1.5 years (but is still selling even if not so much). Also you stated yourself games that make 1.5 mio sells make profit.

So I still cant figure out why this concept doesn't make profit from EA's perspective.
...

And before stating something about how pumping out low quality products would effect the company reputation remember we are talking about EA in the end.

This is not the aproach i would like bioware to take on DA I just don't see why EA could not choose it.

In a sense you make a valid point.

This whole debacle has been "profitable", regardless of how bad the game is, and ultimately the prestige of the IP is clearly not the primary consideration if other product families serve as useful examples. I get the firm impression in the current context that anything is seen as expendable for the bottom line for EA. From their point of view this is understandable, but only in dire straits because it's severe short-termism - if you'll destroy valuable IP to make a fast buck, you're not worrying about 2 years from now.

It's interesting to note that lots of the profit for DA2 will have come from that account tie-in - if people could refund this game, well I wouldn't be surprised if the feedback process was a very different story.

I think they would certainly have had to listen to player feedback if there was the prospect of people getting their money back, it would be unthinkable to waft around the press saying everyone who disliked the product was unrealistic or retarded, because they'd be returning the game the next day.

Food for thought.

Modifié par Gotholhorakh, 09 mai 2011 - 08:39 .

[Night Prowler76]

MDT1 wrote...

Night Prowler76 wrote...

So you are making up numbers out of your arse so that they back up your own argument, ok I will play...the development teams arent going to be the same size obviously, like I said, 2 full studio's are required to release a Cod game on a yearly basis. Now they are up to to 3 studio's working on the next COD and Treyarch will be doing the one after that, so thats 4 studio's in total working to put out COD games every year...

The DA2 team simply does not have the resources to do a game in 1 year, it took 18 months for DA2 and it was lacklustre, so they would almost need 2x the employee's to make the game in 1 year.

It doesnt matter what you "expect", there is the real world, and the then there is the fantasy world that you apparently live in, you can make up numbers all you like, but that doesnt make it reality, remember DA2 didnt sell 1.5 million copies in a year, it sold 1.5 million copies in an "18 month development cycle".

OK it sold 1.5 mio in 1.5 years (but is still selling even if not so much). Even you stated games that make 1.5 mio sells make profit.

So I still cant figure out why this concept doesn't make profit from EA's perspective.
And shorter development means less investment means less risk which just makes it even more interesting for them.
I also clearly mentioned that if CoD would release one game each year with one team it would suffer a loss in quality because I'm quite aware that they could not put the same effort in each game that way (or double the team size which is nearly the same as two teams).

I asked for additional info as the set in the article is obviously incomplete. In the real world you need to base expectations on a complete set of numbers so other people can follow your conclusions and if you don't have a complete set it actually proves nothing.

And before stating something about how pumping out low quality products would effect the company reputation remember we are talking about EA in the end.

This is not the aproach i would like bioware to take on DA I just don't see why EA could not choose it.

Oh I agree that EA could choose this route, but they wont, just because of the business aspect, I think they are understanding now that the RPG crowd is not as forgiving as the casual crowd, at DA2's sales rate it will sell half of what DAO sold, if the company wants to grow the brand, especially in the RPG genre, they will have to make sure its a quality product.

EA doesnt want to make a little money on a game, they want to make millions on their games, they did an experiment with DA2, it backfired to a degree, and low and behold 2 months after its release, Mass Effect 3 gets pushed back for more development time, this is not a big surprise.

Im sure if EA can find a way to make money doing less work, they will, but what works in a FPS franchise like call of duty, doesnt translate that well to RPG's, most of the big RPG's have a long dev time, TW2 has 4 years,, Skyrim 5 years, both will be profitable, I can honestly see Skyrim selling 7 million or more copies, just opinion of course.

[SirShreK]

MDT1 wrote...

OK it sold 1.5 mio in 1.5 years (but is still selling even if not so much). Even you stated games that make 1.5 mio sells make profit.

So I still cant figure out why this concept doesn't make profit from EA's perspective.
And shorter development means less investment means less risk which just makes it even more interesting for them.
I also clearly mentioned that if CoD would release one game each year with one team it would suffer a loss in quality because I'm quite aware that they could not put the same effort in each game that way (or double the team size which is nearly the same as two teams).

I asked for additional info as the set in the article is obviously incomplete. In the real world you need to base expectations on a complete set of numbers so other people can follow your conclusions and if you don't have a complete set it actually proves nothing.

And before stating something about how pumping out low quality products would effect the company reputation remember we are talking about EA in the end.

This is not the aproach i would like bioware to take on DA I just don't see why EA could not choose it.

I am guessing that there is not a lot of economics you studied. After you attain a certain size, the business is no longer about direct profit from one game. Its about attracting investors into your stocks so you can fund hundresdes of games making huge profits. Of course profit is important. It tells people that you are dependable. But what they are really looking for is RETURNS ON THEIR INVESTMENT. These returns have to be substantial (vague term, I admit) to continue investing sue many factors, especially inflation. This is how you actually raise money for the 100million dollar campaign for Battlefield 3. Thus stock market, as you can now see, is a business built on trust. The cash comesbecause the investor TRUSTS that EA will deliver them good profit. 

DA2 was no doubt numerically profitable. But I am guessing here that the publisher/developer EAware was counting on comparitively very large profits. They even publicly announced that their goal was ~10 million sales. What you need to understand is that precisely statements like these (we will make 10M sales!!!! yeeeppee!) is what attracts investors. If they don't see it happening they start pulling out to invest in a rather more profitable venture since no one is here for charity.

[UBER GEEKZILLA]

ok so it isnt selling as well as the first its still selling well though. i meen bioware isnt going to go bankrupt anytime soon

[neppakyo]

UBER GEEKZILLA wrote...

ok so it isnt selling as well as the first its still selling well though. i meen EA isnt going to go bankrupt anytime soon

Fixed it for you 

And to date, judging by the trends and such, a rough estimate its sold around 1.3-1.5 million units total across three platforms.

The 8th week of sales is very poor, roughly 30,000.

Still, some decent sales, EA probably made a small little profit off of it.

Modifié par neppakyo, 09 mai 2011 - 11:09 .

[erynnar]

neppakyo wrote...

UBER GEEKZILLA wrote...

ok so it isnt selling as well as the first its still selling well though. i meen EA isnt going to go bankrupt anytime soon

Fixed it for you 

And to date, judging by the trends and such, a rough estimate its sold around 1.3-1.5 million units total across three platforms.

The 8th week of sales is very poor, roughly 30,000.

Still, some decent sales, EA probably made a small little profit off of it.

I don't doubt that. But was it what they were looking for?

[Volourn]

DA2 has sold 2mil+ copies. vghchartz maskes up random numbers are usually off. Then again, some people actually believe stuff like 472,000 = 555,000. Yeah, I know. Very trustworthy indeed.

I'll stick to NPD, or even 'Evil' EA sicne if EA lies about stuff like this they risk legal ramifications while if vghcratz is 'proven' wrong (which they can't be since they admit to guessing) nothing happens, they shrug their shoulders and go 'our bad' then they change their numbers to match their 'comptetion' whcih vghchartz themselves trust more. HA!

Or another way, I trust neppakyo or myself more than vghcartz.

[neppakyo]

Dude. They haven't. They sold in 2 million to retailers, which basically means shipped. sell through means actually sold. In the EA report they specifically said "sold in 2 million"

Actual sales are probably well under 2 million. More like between 1.3-1.5 million.

[Volourn]

Proof?

IIncoming vghcartz quote. L0L

Until you give me actual trustworthy proof, I'll stick with the 2mil number.

[Night Prowler76]

Volourn wrote...

Proof?

IIncoming vghcartz quote. L0L

Until you give me actual trustworthy proof, I'll stick with the 2mil number.

EA released the statement that they "sold in" (shipped) 2 million copies...

[Night Prowler76]

@ Volourn

News
Videos
Reviews
Trophies
Staff
Forums

User: Pass: Remember

Register
Lost your password?

PSLS » Developer » News
EA Dominates Metacritic, Boasts Multi-Million Selling Franchises
05/07/2011 Written by Allen Tyson

Financial figures released by Game Publishers aren’t always the most exciting thing to read, and EA must think the same thing. Early this week, the company highlighted what matters most to gamers: Are EA’s games any good?

EA released a few ‘Selected Operating Highlights and Metrics’ in their press release earlier this week which highlights just how well their games did this year; and even tells you where to go find their top titles:

EA was the #1 publisher in the Western World in Q4 on high definition consoles and #1 on the PC. EA was the #1 publisher in Europe and increased segment share by three points to 20%.

EA delivered 15 titles rated 80 or above by Metacritic in fiscal 2011. Mass Effect™ 2 won more than 150 quality awards including Game of the Year at both the Academy of Interactive Arts and Sciences and the British Academy of Film and Television Arts.

EA held 15 of the top 25 paid games on the iPhone® Easter Weekend. Revenue from iOS devices and from our Playfish social gaming site both increased by more than 100% in the fourth quarter as compared to the same period fiscal 2010.

EA shipped seven titles in the fourth quarter that have already sold in over 1 million units each, life to date. Crysis® 2, Dragon Age™ 2, and Dead Space™ 2 each sold in more than two million units.

Life to date, including digital, FIFA 11 sold in 12 million units; Battlefield: Bad Company™ 2 sold in over seven million units; and Medal of Honor™, Need for Speed™ Hot Pursuit, and Madden NFL 11 each sold in over five million units.

Cumulative sales of Dead Space 2 are currently 40% higher than sales of the original Dead Space game over a comparable period.

The EA SPORTS™ FIFA franchise generated over $100 million in non-GAAP digital revenue in fiscal 2011.

[Volourn]

That proves they sold 2mil copies. Not that they didn't. It also likely doesn't cover steam. None of this proves the accuracy of vghchartz which we all know is inaccurate.M in fact, vghchartz could be so off that DA2 sold only 1000 copies. That's how untrustworthy vghcartz is.

Prove to me that 1.3-1.5mil copies is actually numerically accurate and not random guess work.

Even taking in the argument that 'shipped' one could safely make the argyument that the game has sold 1,999,999 copies. *shrug* Espicially since that quote of what a month into DA2's release isn't uptodate since announcements like that are slow in ther making.

2mil is the number untiol proven wrong. And, it likely won't be proven wrong out the game reaches 3mil.

Then again, I've this forum to see that DA1 has sold 1.5mil, 3mil, 3.5mil, 4.5mil, or 6mil... Who can I trust?

Not to mention the silly fantasy number of 10mil was their 'goal' which it never was - talk about an out of context quote twisted to be soemthing.

heh. Ranting is fun.

bottom line is vghchartz is untrustworthy so please show me a trustworthy source that states 1.3-1.5mil copies sold.

Modifié par Volourn, 09 mai 2011 - 11:44 .

[Night Prowler76]

Volourn wrote...

That proves they sold 2mil copies. Not that they didn't. It also likely doesn't cover steam. None of this proves the accuracy of vghchartz which we all know is inaccurate.M in fact, vghchartz could be so off that DA2 sold only 1000 copies. That's how untrustworthy vghcartz is.

Prove to me that 1.3-1.5mil copies is actually numerically accurate and not random guess work.

Even taking in the argument that 'shipped' one could safely make the argyument that the game has sold 1,999,999 copies. *shrug* Espicially since that quote of what a month into DA2's release isn't uptodate since announcements like that are slow in ther making.

2mil is the number untiol proven wrong. And, it likely won't be proven wrong out the game reaches 3mil.

Then again, I've this forum to see that DA1 has sold 1.5mil, 3mil, 3.5mil, 4.5mil, or 6mil... Who can I trust?

Not to mention the silly fantasy number of 10mil was their 'goal' which it never was - talk about an out of context quote twisted to be soemthing.

heh. Ranting is fun.

bottom line is vghchartz is untrustworthy so please show me a trustworthy source that states 1.3-1.5mil copies sold.


P.S. That source clasrifies it has sold over 1mil but I doubt it's all the way uptodate. Nowhere does it claim it sold 1.3-1.5mil. It could be 1,000,000 or it could be 1,999,999. And, to what date is it accurate to since those postings need to go through reviews before being posted.

Please prove that the game has sold 1.3-1.5mil copies at this time.

No Volourn, that proves that they "shipped" 2 million copies to retailers, and you should brush up on your reading comprehension, it states that Crysis 2,  Dead Space 2 and Dragon age 2 sold in 2 million.

EA shipped seven titles in the fourth quarter that have already sold in
over 1 million units each, life to date. Crysis® 2, Dragon Age™ 2, and
Dead Space™ 2 each sold in more than two million units.

Modifié par Night Prowler76, 09 mai 2011 - 11:46 .

[neppakyo]

Seriously dude, which part of the term sold in do you not comprehend?

[Night Prowler76]

neppakyo wrote...

Seriously dude, which part of the term sold in do you not comprehend?

He didnt even understand that Crysis 2, Dead Space 2 and Dragon age 2 sold in 2 million, so its not too hard to believe he doesnt know what "sold in" means either.

Sigh, lack of education is really hurting society.

[Volourn]

What part of EA sold 2mil copies don't YOU understand?

Why are you trolling when I'm simply stating a fact that EA sold 2mil copies then you randomly make up a 1.3-1.5number with no basis in fact to back yourself up. Just prove your 1.3-1.5 number with a believeable source. That's all i ask.

[SirShreK]

Arguing with Volourn is not dis-similar to wallbanging. Carry on.

[erynnar]

Guys, TROLL IN THE DUNGEON!!!! Thought you'd like to know." *faints*

Seriously he can't figure out the quote button, you think he will understand "sold in" means sold to retailers not consumers? Come on...

[nopho]

seriously, look at the thread i made here about that matter, people tried to educate him there. a teacher of mine once said "some people are just education resistant."

good night

[Volourn]

Who claimed EA sold 2mil to customers? I said that EA said they sold 2mil copies. This is undisputable fact so how is that trolling?

However,t he 1.3-1.5 random number has no basis in fact and is pure random conjecture. Where's the legit proof?

[neppakyo]

I know, but its irking me! ERYNNAR ITS IRKING ME! Plus, I'm not stating numbers as fact. I am giving a rough estimate by selling trends.

And since the EA report ends for March 31st, and crysis 2 was launched on March 22th,24th,and 25th, according to Volourn, that means Crysis2 sold 2+ million in one week.

I guess I missed the huge EA celebration page about that one.

[Night Prowler76]

Volourn wrote...

What part of EA "sold in" 2mil copies don't YOU understand?

Why are you trolling when I'm simply stating a fact that EA "sold in" 2mil copies .

Fixed on behalf of Volourn.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Volourn. Volourn never changes.