227 réponses à ce sujet

[Night Prowler76]

Volourn wrote...

You guys are ridiculous trying tos pin the new that DA2 has sold 2mil+ in about as some sort of 'proof of failure'. My god, it's hialrious how desperate you guys are to eb somehow 'vindicated'. Once again, I'm proven right.

I guarantee youn that more people avoided preordering DA2 because they hated DA1 then people avoided preordering DA2 after loving DA1 and thinking that DA2 would suck. So, I say DA1 has cost DA2 at least one million sales. Damn that stupid DA1, DAMN IT TO HELL!!

DA2 sold 2mil+, and let's watch the haters hate! HA!


p.s. People forget that most of these sales likely came before the stupid ME2 deal (which was more of a way to pimp ME3 than DA2, trust me on that0.

HA! HA! HA!

I can't wait tom hear the cries of 'DA2 is a failure despite selling 3mil'.

LMAO

Did you go to school?

[Chris Priestly]

FellowerOfOdin wrote...

I'd rather believe in VGChartz than numbers from the same company that made the game. I mean...seriously folks? They could say they sold 5 millions. They want to sell the game. Saying that it sold less won't help.

You really should consider what happens to a publicly traded company if they falsify numbers before saying something like the above.

[Night Prowler76]

Sold in = Sent to retailers
Sold through = Sold to end consumer..which equals the true sales figure.

[FellowerOfOdin]

Chris Priestly wrote...

FellowerOfOdin wrote...

I'd rather believe in VGChartz than numbers from the same company that made the game. I mean...seriously folks? They could say they sold 5 millions. They want to sell the game. Saying that it sold less won't help.

You really should consider what happens to a publicly traded company if they falsify numbers before saying something like the above.

Point taken.

Then again, why not publish actual sales numbers? 

Modifié par FellowerOfOdin, 04 mai 2011 - 10:38 .

[devSin]

Chris Priestly wrote...

You really should consider what happens to a publicly traded company if they falsify numbers before saying something like the above.

Being a community representative, you well know that there are plenty of ways to get around the truth without actually having to falsify anything (that anyone could prove, at least).

But yeah, the numbers aren't fabricated. Hopefully more interest picks up with a patch or two and some more DLC, at least enough for a good expansion. Games that are finished until the next sequel are dumb.

Night Prowler76 wrote...

Sold in = Sent to retailers
Sold through = Sold to end consumer..which equals the true sales figure.

Considering the time it took to move another million out (it's not been a month since they said the first million went out), I don't think it's really relevant (it had to have been pushing through the first million fast enough for retailers to pick up another million, so they'll probably get through them). It'll be more interesting to see if they ever reach 3 million.

Modifié par devSin, 04 mai 2011 - 10:42 .

[AkiKishi]

FellowerOfOdin wrote...

Chris Priestly wrote...

FellowerOfOdin wrote...

I'd rather believe in VGChartz than numbers from the same company that made the game. I mean...seriously folks? They could say they sold 5 millions. They want to sell the game. Saying that it sold less won't help.

You really should consider what happens to a publicly traded company if they falsify numbers before saying something like the above.

Point taken.

Then again, why not publish actual sales numbers? 

They are not likely to have actual sales numbers it would just be an estimate like VGChartz uses and getting it wrong with shareholders is a bit more serious.

[Night Prowler76]

FellowerOfOdin wrote...

Chris Priestly wrote...

FellowerOfOdin wrote...

I'd rather believe in VGChartz than numbers from the same company that made the game. I mean...seriously folks? They could say they sold 5 millions. They want to sell the game. Saying that it sold less won't help.

You really should consider what happens to a publicly traded company if they falsify numbers before saying something like the above.

Point taken.

Then again, why not publish actual sales numbers? 

It makes it look better when they say "sold in" which is shipped to the retailer in a round about way, then giving the actual figure.

[agesilaj12]

{Bioware Guy}

Not to nitpick, but in  environment as it stands today, not much as long as SEC is enforcing it as vigilantly as they do now. But anyway, congrats to EA/Bioware on their financial goals being met.

Modifié par agesilaj12, 04 mai 2011 - 10:44 .

[Night Prowler76]

agesilaj12 wrote...

Night Prowler76 wrote...

Sold in = Sent to retailers
Sold through = Sold to end consumer..which equals the true sales figure.

Not to nitpick, but in  environment as it stands today, not much as long as SEC is enforcing it as vigilantly as they do now. But anyway, congrats to EA/Bioware on their financial goals being met.

I dont think EA met their goals, they lost around 300 million dollars this quarter the last time I heard.

[devSin]

BobSmith101 wrote...

They are not likely to have actual sales numbers it would just be an estimate like VGChartz uses and getting it wrong with shareholders is a bit more serious.

They have the exact "sales" number, but you're not precisely their customer. They get their cut from the digital vendors (and know their exact number sold), and they know how much product they've moved to retail (this number could change if they have to buy stock back, but it's the exact figure for any given moment in time).

As you can imagine, for publisher/developer relations, they have to have this exact figure (for the purpose of determining royalties). This doesn't matter anymore for BioWare, but EA still knows the real number.

Modifié par devSin, 04 mai 2011 - 10:49 .

[SirShreK]

I don't understand. Why do devs come and chastise opinions and not just clear the matter up? They could simply say that, YES! We sold 2M units to consumers!! The silence on the front is nothing less that screaming recognition of the opposite.Perhaps I am wrong and prejudiced. But then why don't you correct me Chris?

[Volourn]

Because a) it's none of your business he deosn't have actual numbers personally c) he doesn't have permission by his bosses to post numbers if he has them d) you don't get info demanding it in the manner that you which is very rdue, condescending, and arrogant.

[Stanley Woo]

Volourn is technically correct, if blunt and snarky.

[SirShreK]

Volourn wrote...

Because a) it's none of your business he deosn't have actual numbers personally c) he doesn't have permission by his bosses to post numbers if he has them d) you don't get info demanding it in the manner that you which is very rdue, condescending, and arrogant.

Mighty strong words Volourn. Mighty strong.  Whether these questions are my business or not is not your business. i did not ask for actual numbers. I asked for whether these umbers are units sold to consumers or retailers. And nothing I stated is rude. 

[IanPolaris]

Stanley Woo wrote...

Volourn is technically correct, if blunt and snarky.

However, the contrary post he was responding to is basically correct as well.  The report as it is written and phrased means very little.

-Polaris

[SirShreK]

Stanley Woo wrote...

Volourn is technically correct, if blunt and snarky.

Care to explain, please?

[Hatchetman77]

San Diego Thief wrote...

I returned my pre-order back to Amazon...do they still count that as a sale?

Yuppers.  If a unit was bought it goes into the sales stat.  What happens to it after that is a different stat.  These are probably "shipped" stats so that 2 million most likely includes boxes of Dragon Age still sitting on game store shelves.

Modifié par Hatchetman77, 04 mai 2011 - 11:21 .

[Everwarden]

Maverick827 wrote...
I didn't know it was possible to be able to take you even less seriously.

I'll cry myself to sleep, your opinion of me was my sole reason for living. 

[Zkyire]

I love how people are constantly doubting the numbers.

Almost as if they want it to fail.

[Everwarden]

Volourn wrote...

You guys are ridiculous trying tos pin the new that DA2 has sold 2mil+ in about as some sort of 'proof of failure'. My god, it's hialrious how desperate you guys are to eb somehow 'vindicated'. Once again, I'm proven right.

HA! HA! HA!

I.. can't tell if you're a troll or just a moron. 

[tmp7704]

SirShreK wrote...

Care to explain, please?

The a, b and c are likely technically correct, i.e. true. The d is debatable, since it's situational -- if i have authority to demand the answer, then i can demand it in as rude manner as i feel like it and it has to be provided no matter how butthurt the one who delivers it feels about it.

Obviously, this isn't one of these situations where such authority exists.

[xkg]

Everwarden wrote...

Volourn wrote...

You guys are ridiculous trying tos pin the new that DA2 has sold 2mil+ in about as some sort of 'proof of failure'. My god, it's hialrious how desperate you guys are to eb somehow 'vindicated'. Once again, I'm proven right.

HA! HA! HA!

I.. can't tell if you're a troll or just a moron. 

Both ?

[SirShreK]

IEatWhatIPoo wrote...

I love how people are constantly doubting the numbers.

Almost as if they want it to fail.

Of course I want it to fail. Without it Bioware would not return to DA:O like games. Is this a legitimate thing to say? I don't know. But it feels right to me. From what I understand of economics (not much) I see that I can only vote through my wallet now a days. So be it. 

[SirShreK]

tmp7704 wrote...

SirShreK wrote...

Care to explain, please?

The a, b and c are likely technically correct, i.e. true. The d is debatable, since it's situational -- if i have authority to demand the answer, then i can demand it in as rude manner as i feel like it and it has to be provided no matter how butthurt the one who delivers it feels about it.



Obviously, this isn't one of these situations where such authority exists.

how can it be technically correct when I never ever even said anything about it? Volourn is not even using Strawman. He/she/it is incapable of that. Volourn is just venting anger.

[Boiny Bunny]

Public announcements such as the number of sales made to date can have a large effect on future sales of the product (or other products the same company offers).

Incredibly strong sales numbers make consumers more likely to purchase the product if they haven't already, and poor sales numbers vice versa.

As such, a company has no incentive to release such sales numbers, under any circumstances, unless management feels that they are strong enough to encourage further sales rather than dampen them.

In terms of the actual language used in such announcements, companies will do absolutely anything within thier power to trick the audience into thinking things are better than they are, without actually lying. It's all about using the right words. It's not uncommon to hear companies gloating about their incredibly high 'gross profit' - while in reality, they have made a substantial net loss.

Likewise, the difference between units 'sold' and units 'sold in' (or 'shipped') is one of the oldest tricks in the book when it comes to announcing sales numbers. It often works too - as you can see here - the OP misinterpreted the sentance, then created an entire thread spreading misinformation.

As Chris rightly pointed out, EA would be in a large amount of trouble with all kinds of regulatory bodies if it had falsified its numbers. EA have not in any way lied or engaged in something illegal by making the announcement in this manner - they've simply used tricky wording to make one thing sound like another. This is common business practice.

Modifié par Boiny Bunny, 04 mai 2011 - 11:28 .