1033 réponses à ce sujet

[Tommy6860]

YohkoOhno wrote...

I doubt it is as bleack as Ian says. I do agree the numbers are less than DA1 and between this and the negative feedback there are course corrections Bioware must take. (I don't think even with Laidlaw's statements anybody expected 5-10 million of sales--that sounded like hopeful and wishful thinking, and I doubt EA bet their product selling that much) But consider the following.

The game's sold over 1 million units so far. They'll probably end up selling 2 million in 52 weeks. That will likely offset returns. And this isn't counting digital sales.

The game likely took less money to make.

They spent less on advertising and marketing, which is what they did to introduce a new property.

The Dragon Age property still has value in any event. Bioware didn't make the IP just for RPGs. I'm sure thoughts of everything from FPS to RTS to social games were considered. Even if EA decided to cancel the RPG, I could see them continuing the storylines akin to an Assassin's Creed hero--heck, Bioware doesn't own the property, EA does.

Everything on sales without true numbers given by EA, is just what it is, speculation. We can assert certain conditions to the numbers though. Development time was much shorter than Origins, probably around the 2 year mark, maybe less if going by former employees comments on various forums. That there saved a ton of money where even half the sales of Origins would till mean a big profit. However, they did not spend less on marketing and advertising than Origins. DA2 may have been one of the biggest recent marketing campaigns after the Battlefield series. I don't ever remember Origins getting the kind of marketing that DA2 did.

[YohkoOhno]

I'd disagree with the marketing. There was more TV advertising, for DA:O than DA2. They spent more time with DA:O plugging the website and doing interviews. TV ads alone might be half the budget because it was so expensive.

[Tommy6860]

YohkoOhno wrote...

I'd disagree with the marketing. There was more TV advertising, for DA:O than DA2. They spent more time with DA:O plugging the website and doing interviews. TV ads alone might be half the budget because it was so expensive.

I remember very littel advertising of DA:O, seriously. I don't ever remember seeing it on TV. I saw it adver'd on many sites, but even then it didn't get the promotion that DA2 got. I mean, the marketing teams and leads were all over gaming sites giving video reviews near three to one what Origins had before it release. Not only that, Origins didn't even have a demo, let alone one that was advertised and marketed where if a certain download count was met, people would get a free in-game item to use, and that's just one marketing campaign.

[IanPolaris]

Well, I did warn everyone that I was guessing. I think my guesses are educated reasonable guesses based on past performance, similiar titles,and public information from the writers, devs, and other bioware sources, but it's possible that DA2 is more profitable than I am guessing, and it's possible the expectation was more modest than I think.

I don't think so, but the outlook might not be as grim as I've been protraying. OTOH, I think it's equally probable and reasonble to think it was actually worse. What EA/BW does next and how they handle the franchise and (potential) DLC/Expansions/Sequels will tell a lot.

-Polaris

Modifié par IanPolaris, 17 mai 2011 - 12:00 .

[erynnar]

I just hope BioWare stops trying to make RPGs for people who don't like RPGs. And no, I am not talking about console players. I am talking about the people on this forum who talk about getting rid of loot entirely, and keeping the exploding enemies, and the set narrative. I keep thinking...you have games like that...plenty of them. Why are you here on these forums trying to convince BioWare to turn yet another IP into an GoW or CoD?

I hope these sales tell them that they need not bother trying to get that crowd or those crowds anymore. They should do what they do best..cRPGs.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

erynnar wrote...

I just hope BioWare stops trying to make RPGs for people who don't like RPGs. And no, I am not talking about console players. I am talking about the people on this forum who talk about getting rid of loot entirely, and keeping the exploding enemies, and the set narrative. I keep thinking...you have games like that...plenty of them. Why are you here on these forums trying to convince BioWare to turn yet another IP into an GoW or CoD?

I hope these sales tell them that they need not bother trying to get that crowd or those crowds anymore. They should do what they do best..cRPGs.

Get with the times.

The best RPGs are ones that aren't even like RPGs at all.

Well, no, that's not fair.

To be honest, this idea of combat + story = RPG mindset and focusing on those two elements at the detriment of others, is technically what RPGs started as, D&D being an adaptation of a tabletop war game.

I am just miffed at the idea that this is somehow an "evolution" of the genre. It's like saying that modern man evolving into cavemen is good for progress and "the way of the future".

But really, Bioware will do what they want to do. Hopefully, it's in the direction that I, and judging by Dragon Age 2's sales, most of it's audience, likes.

I see it as a matter of focus more than anything. I see Dragon Age 2 that wanted to be an Action game with lots of filler combat and good story. Whereas I saw Dragon Age: Origins as a roleplaying game with a good story and too much filler combat.

Granted, the focus on combat is something inherent for all Bioware games. Ironically, games like Fallout are less violent than Dragon Age as you can play as a pacifist or a stealthy rogue or a variety of different characters and still do absolutely fine.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 17 mai 2011 - 01:56 .

[Yrkoon]

Rebecca Black likes DA2 wrote...



Week 8 USA
PC- 1,279
360- 4,759
PS3- 3,777

Ouch.

If true, these are really  *really* low numbers.  Again, I wonder how many copies of DA:O sold in the USA this week.

[neppakyo]

Yrkoon wrote...

Rebecca Black likes DA2 wrote...



Week 8 USA
PC- 1,279
360- 4,759
PS3- 3,777

Ouch.

If true, these are really  *really* low numbers.  Again, I wonder how many copies of DA:O sold in the USA this week.

Probably double that heh.

Where's xkg or whatever his name who does the charts up? I think he also added digital sales to it as well, I can't remember.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

That would be really sad if Origins sales were higher than Dragon Age 2's sales.

Or really aweso....

Really cool, depending on how you look at things.

[Yrkoon]

I would think the significance would go even  beyond the "awesome" or "really bad". If DA:O is currently outselling DA2, then there's no reason it should just sit there, unsupported by Bioware. (They've long stopped patching it, putting out DLCs for it etc.)  They should be going back to promoting it.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 17 mai 2011 - 02:07 .

[neppakyo]

Yrkoon wrote...

I would think the significance would go even  beyond the "awesome" or "really bad". If DA:O is currently outselling DA2, then there's no reason it should just sit there, unsupported by Bioware. (They've long stopped patching it, putting out DLCs for it etc.)  They should be going back to promoting it.

Oh yeah. What did happen to that "2 year DLC" release I heard about for Origins? Eh, Mr. Laidlaw?

EDIT: And add patch for the toolset for awakenings.. also add more patches to fix awakenings..

Modifié par neppakyo, 17 mai 2011 - 02:08 .

[IanPolaris]

Yrkoon wrote...

I would think the significance would go even  beyond the "awesome" or "really bad". If DA:O is currently outselling DA2, then there's no reason it should just sit there, unsupported by Bioware. (They've long stopped patching it, putting out DLCs for it etc.)  They should be going back to promoting it.

Doing that would be an admission of failure, and if there is one thing a publically traded company will never do (unless forced to) is publically admit failure.

-Polaris

[RaenImrahl]

Yrkoon wrote...

I would think the significance would go even  beyond the "awesome" or "really bad". If DA:O is currently outselling DA2, then there's no reason it should just sit there, unsupported by Bioware. (They've long stopped patching it, putting out DLCs for it etc.)  They should be going back to promoting it.

There is a 1.05 patch in development for DAO.  http://social.biowar...37421/1#7137421

[erynnar]

mrcrusty wrote...

erynnar wrote...

I just hope BioWare stops trying to make RPGs for people who don't like RPGs. And no, I am not talking about console players. I am talking about the people on this forum who talk about getting rid of loot entirely, and keeping the exploding enemies, and the set narrative. I keep thinking...you have games like that...plenty of them. Why are you here on these forums trying to convince BioWare to turn yet another IP into an GoW or CoD?

I hope these sales tell them that they need not bother trying to get that crowd or those crowds anymore. They should do what they do best..cRPGs.

Get with the times.

The best RPGs are ones that aren't even like RPGs at all.

Well, no, that's not fair.

To be honest, this idea of combat + story = RPG mindset and focusing on those two elements at the detriment of others, is technically what RPGs started as, D&D being an adaptation of a tabletop war game.

I am just miffed at the idea that this is somehow an "evolution" of the genre. It's like saying that modern man evolving into cavemen is good for progress and "the way of the future".

But really, Bioware will do what they want to do. Hopefully, it's in the direction that I, and judging by Dragon Age 2's sales, most of it's audience, likes.

I see it as a matter of focus more than anything. I see Dragon Age 2 that wanted to be an Action game with lots of filler combat and good story. Whereas I saw Dragon Age: Origins as a roleplaying game with a good story and too much filler combat.

Granted, the focus on combat is something inherent for all Bioware games. Ironically, games like Fallout are less violent than Dragon Age as you can play as a pacifist or a stealthy rogue or a variety of different characters and still do absolutely fine.

Interesting Nepp's evil twin....:wub:

I guess I liked DAO's forumla better. I like some combat, but I prefer a roleplaying game with a good story first and foremost.

[Deganis76]

erynnar wrote...

mrcrusty wrote...

erynnar wrote...

I just hope BioWare stops trying to make RPGs for people who don't like RPGs. And no, I am not talking about console players. I am talking about the people on this forum who talk about getting rid of loot entirely, and keeping the exploding enemies, and the set narrative. I keep thinking...you have games like that...plenty of them. Why are you here on these forums trying to convince BioWare to turn yet another IP into an GoW or CoD?

I hope these sales tell them that they need not bother trying to get that crowd or those crowds anymore. They should do what they do best..cRPGs.

Get with the times.

The best RPGs are ones that aren't even like RPGs at all.

Well, no, that's not fair.

To be honest, this idea of combat + story = RPG mindset and focusing on those two elements at the detriment of others, is technically what RPGs started as, D&D being an adaptation of a tabletop war game.

I am just miffed at the idea that this is somehow an "evolution" of the genre. It's like saying that modern man evolving into cavemen is good for progress and "the way of the future".

But really, Bioware will do what they want to do. Hopefully, it's in the direction that I, and judging by Dragon Age 2's sales, most of it's audience, likes.

I see it as a matter of focus more than anything. I see Dragon Age 2 that wanted to be an Action game with lots of filler combat and good story. Whereas I saw Dragon Age: Origins as a roleplaying game with a good story and too much filler combat.

Granted, the focus on combat is something inherent for all Bioware games. Ironically, games like Fallout are less violent than Dragon Age as you can play as a pacifist or a stealthy rogue or a variety of different characters and still do absolutely fine.

Interesting Nepp's evil twin....:wub:

I guess I liked DAO's forumla better. I like some combat, but I prefer a roleplaying game with a good story first and foremost.

Hey Neels   I just loaded by Lvl 35 Warden (Origins/Awakening/Golems/Witch Hunt complete) and he racked up 1,405 kills while the party racked up 3,905 kills (that's a lot of dead darkspawn!).  DAO had quite a bit of fighting in it...

[TheTranzor]

mrcrusty wrote...

erynnar wrote...

I just hope BioWare stops trying to make RPGs for people who don't like RPGs. And no, I am not talking about console players. I am talking about the people on this forum who talk about getting rid of loot entirely, and keeping the exploding enemies, and the set narrative. I keep thinking...you have games like that...plenty of them. Why are you here on these forums trying to convince BioWare to turn yet another IP into an GoW or CoD?

I hope these sales tell them that they need not bother trying to get that crowd or those crowds anymore. They should do what they do best..cRPGs.

Get with the times.

The best RPGs are ones that aren't even like RPGs at all.

Well, no, that's not fair.

To be honest, this idea of combat + story = RPG mindset and focusing on those two elements at the detriment of others, is technically what RPGs started as, D&D being an adaptation of a tabletop war game.

I am just miffed at the idea that this is somehow an "evolution" of the genre. It's like saying that modern man evolving into cavemen is good for progress and "the way of the future".

But really, Bioware will do what they want to do. Hopefully, it's in the direction that I, and judging by Dragon Age 2's sales, most of it's audience, likes.

I see it as a matter of focus more than anything. I see Dragon Age 2 that wanted to be an Action game with lots of filler combat and good story. Whereas I saw Dragon Age: Origins as a roleplaying game with a good story and too much filler combat.

Granted, the focus on combat is something inherent for all Bioware games. Ironically, games like Fallout are less violent than Dragon Age as you can play as a pacifist or a stealthy rogue or a variety of different characters and still do absolutely fine.

I dunno... I think DA2 got it's exploding enemies from Fallout, which even if you play all stealthy-like (which is how I almost always play Fallout) is still pretty bloody.  Nothing like sneaking up, firing your sniper rifle at a Super Mutant and having him explode into a million fleshy bits, while one of his friends right next to him just says "What was that?  Huh... must have been the wind."  

Being the roleplaying geek that I am, I am quite familiar with the age old D&D formula for RPing.  Usually it involved dungeon crawling, stripping every corpse naked for loot, watching your friends die next to you and shrugging as you go through their clothing looking for loose gold pieces.

Luckily, the latest incarnations of D&D have streamlined the combat segment and put more of an emphasis on character building and story telling.  To me that's what a good RPG is, whether it's a pen & paper game or a video game... making you truly feel like you're stepping into the role of the character, caring about what happens to them, and telling a great story around them.  And of course, some fighting, killing, and stripping corpses naked looking for stray treasure as the cherry on top.  


 

Modifié par TheTranzor, 17 mai 2011 - 03:55 .

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Actually, I think it's a throwback to chunking in the Baldur's Gate games, but the thing is, in both the Fallout games and in Baldur's Gate, it's optional. In BG you could turn it off, in Fallout, it doesn't happen if you don't get the Bloody Mess Perk. Dragon Age 2, no such luck.

And to clarify, when I say Fallout, I mean 1/2/NV. With a bit of effort, you can beat those games without killing anyone. I believe one of the original design tenants for the Fallout games was to allow the player to beat the game without killing anyone and by killing everyone. The idea is to design a game and narrative that won't be hamstrung by it. This is through multiple solutions, choice & consequence and basically, good design to give the player absolute freedom. There are trade offs (companions are more shallow, narrative isn't as strong or focused, etc), but it definitely does a lot of things right.

It won't be easy of course, it's very very hard to complete pacifist playthroughs, for example. But the option is there. It's not possible in Fallout 3, unfortunately.

Sure, you won't be able to experience everything in the game, but if you try and kill everything, you'll miss out on a lot of stuff too.

I can't vouch for the new D&D 4e ruleset, I haven't kept up with it, to be honest. But I'm all for good storytelling and character building.



What I would like though, is for Bioware to look at the character stats and character building in say, the Fallout games, and make that apart of your character's development. See, the stats in Dragon Age (both 2 and Origins) are used a lot like stats of say Diablo or Dungeon Siege. Just numbers that only mean something in combat.

Wouldn't it be nice along with bringing back character skills in conversation and gameplay, that we add stats to the mix too. High strength allows you to carry more junk, having a high cunning may open up conversation options to blackmail certain people. Dexterity increases your run speed (don't know if this already happens).

You know, bringing a little more meaning to character building.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 17 mai 2011 - 04:01 .

[devSin]

RaenImrahl wrote...

There is a 1.05 patch in development for DAO.  http://social.biowar...37421/1#7137421

Yeah, only a year too late.

Not even the silver tongue of Rob Bartel can paper over that turd. "Hey, customers, we promise to maybe care about you at some point in the future, if we feel like it, for completely inexplicable reasons. If Dragon Age II doesn't work for you now, check back in a couple years; we just might start Patch 1.04 then."

[Gleym]

mrcrusty wrote...

What I would like though, is for Bioware to look at the character stats and character building in say, the Fallout games, and make that apart of your character's development. See, the stats in Dragon Age (both 2 and Origins) are used a lot like stats of say Diablo or Dungeon Siege. Just numbers that only mean something in combat.

Wouldn't it be nice along with bringing back character skills in conversation and gameplay, that we add stats to the mix too. High strength allows you to carry more junk, having a high cunning may open up conversation options to blackmail certain people. Dexterity increases your run speed (don't know if this already happens).

You know, bringing a little more meaning to character building.

Ah man, you remember the days when your INT scores affected your conversations? Like in IWD2 if your INT scores were high enough, or if you had the right class or whatever, it'd open up entire new venues of conversation, like being able to talk your way out of fightin' a friggin' Baatezu because you knew stuff about the Blood War. Or if you played a Paladin, you'd get stuff like being able to detect peoples' alignments or motives in a conversation to go 'Aha! You're full of sh*t and I see through it!"

Heck, let alone when you roll a LOW-INT character. Moron Playthroughs were worth playing just for the comedic factor alone, wherein everyone looks at your character drooling and going "Hur hur. Me smashy" and just back away slowly.

By comparison, DA2 is more like a jRPG than it is a wRPG. For all of its superficial options the end result is always the same.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Remember?

New Vegas, baby.





But it's not universal, like it should be.



But yes, things like that for me was REAL character building. Different dialog, different quests and different content based on what my character skills are and what information my character knows.



Origins was no stud in this regard, but was much better than Dragon Age 2.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 17 mai 2011 - 06:18 .

[Gleym]

I was so disappointed when New Vegas was limited by the full-on voice-acting again.. Yeah, the options were there, but the reactions weren't. Someone asked me if I was a scientist and I said "Pizza" as my response, and he just nodded as if I was speaking perfect, rational sentences.

Know what was awesome about the Fallouts and Torment though? The fact that those stats and skills were roleplay-affected. Like, do you remember how your actions and how you handled a situation would either add or detract from your stats? Like after going through all that trouble to get the brain chip thing in FO2, it increases your brain capacity, but in exchange for some physical aspects including CHA because you look fugly due to the extent of the surgery.

Or how about the fact that 90% of your EXP in Torment is earned through dialogue and conversation? Not to mention stats bonuses and detractions there too. In Torment, you maybe HAD to fight a good two or three times and little more, the rest of the time you could talk your way out of it, and earn a crapton of EXP just for bein' that good at it. I loved the fact that I could even go up an INT score by proving my intelligence, or that sticking my arms into the Pillar resulted in me losing STR.

Those're the things that made the games a viable RPG experience. Action and reaction, reward and consequence for your decisions and the things you said. I wanna throttle all the people who said that being able to put points into your Charm/Intimidate in ME1 was 'pointless' because it meant they had to choose between that and 'being good at shooting stuff'. It's as if today's gamers haven't heard of the concept of choice in an RPG. In fact, I woulda loved it if they brought it back full-on for the ME series. Imagine if all that research crap you waste time gathering in ME2 actually influenced conversations?

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Though I find it somewhat ironic how you talk about the 'good old days', as I had hoped and somewhat expected that expanding on such systems and better integrating it into gameplay would be how RPGs would've evolved over time.

Instead it seems like the evolution now is to simplify the role playing elements, make the game more cinematic, focus on combat and in the case of Bioware, make a good story, or in the case of Bethesda, make a good sandbox.

They don't make for bad games necessarily. If implemented well enough, you get a really great game. It's just a shame that the genre is moving back to the simple combat + story/setting formula that characterised the really old RPGs, without the challenge those games had and without the aspects of c&c, roleplaying and character building some of the "newer" old games brought.

I also miss dying in F1/2. Of course, Torment handled death differently. But the game over screens in F1/2 is something I'm a little nostalgic for.

Maybe it's just me, but I like knowing that when I die, I failed. I don't just reload and pretend nothing happened, I like the game to tell me my idiocy got me killed and the effects of said idiocy on my quest and narrative.

"Your death has sealed the fate of everyone else on earth. The Enclave triumphs, releasing the FEV virus into the atmosphere. Millions die, and the earth falls silent again."



Oh well, that's the way things are. Dragon Age 2 imo, is still not a bad game overall. Just well... I don't know, average I guess.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 17 mai 2011 - 07:06 .

[Corto81]

Yrkoon wrote...

I would think the significance would go even  beyond the "awesome" or "really bad". If DA:O is currently outselling DA2, then there's no reason it should just sit there, unsupported by Bioware. (They've long stopped patching it, putting out DLCs for it etc.)  They should be going back to promoting it.

If that's true, then I hope BW gets the hint and goes back to making actual fantasy RPGs instead of this action-hack'n'slash-interactive movie mishmash.

And I really hope the rest of the DA team doesn't share Laidlaw's vision.
Because if they do, DA3 will be even more of a failure.

[Embrosil]

simonc4175 wrote...

ConnorHawke wrote...

While I certainly appreciate the diverse opinions around here, I think the clear and obvious consensus is staring Bioware in the face.

On the strength of DA:O, people rushed out to buy DA:2. A huge backlash and below AA score clearly communicated that this game simply wasn't as good as the first in some significant ways.

What I hope is not lost on Bioware, is that, the problems with DA:2 cannot be fixed with small tweaks. They made a fundamentally different game. Now they must fundamentally rethink that approach.

The DA2 demo was released weeks before the final game was published.  Everyone had the chance to see the changes which had been made to DA:2.

There is no real excuse for the people who tried the demo to post unconstructive critism.

If people didn't try the demo they only have themselves to blame as that is why is was released so people could see the changes made.

No? And how about fanboys persuading us in EVERY thread that the demo is not the game and that the game will be completely different? Some people have really short memory it seems. 

I did not fell for this, but many people did. Either because they could not believe that the final game could be that bad, or because they believed in Bioware. Whatever the reason I think all of them will think twice next time.

Modifié par Embrosil, 17 mai 2011 - 03:02 .

[LTD]

mrcrusty wrote...

That would be really sad if Origins sales were higher than Dragon Age 2's sales.

Or really aweso....

Really cool, depending on how you look at things.

At least in Steam, this has been the case for a while now. Last couple of weeks, Dragon Age Origins - Ultimate Edition has had more players/day than Dragon Age II.