273 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

Khayness wrote...
Interesting, DA:O was their best selling product.

Due to the 4 platfroms, but still.

This really comes down to greed as you said, but this adds another perspective.

I did the math in another thread. DA:O sold something like 700,000 more units than ME2 and about 1,000,000 more units than ME1.

But DA:O took as much as ME1 and ME2 combined to develop, which could very well have but the budget of the game along the same level as the entire ME series (because the same salary, lease, etc. costs had to be paid either for both games, on top of the actual dev. budget).

DA:O 3,737,419 according to VGChartz and ME1+ME2 sold 5,774,750.

DA:O was announced at E3 2004, and was ready for released in Nov. 2009. That's about 4 1/2 years (for the multiplatform release, which is why DA:O was delayed, and it sold many times more on consoles than PC).

ME1 was announced in Oct 2005, and ME2 was released Jan. 2010. That's around the same 4 1/2 year mark.

The ME series like had the same dev. time as DA:O alone.

Although DA:O had the biggest raw sales for any Bioware game, ME outpaced it heavily as a product in sales. At 25$ profit per game over the lifespan of each product, Mass Effect had $51,000,000 more in profit, hypothetically.

DA:O was not neccesarily the most profitable model, and I would put good money on the changes in DA2 (to be closer to ME) a way for EA to get at the same Dev cycle.

To give you a comparison, Oblivion developed started in 2002 and was released in 2006 for the 360 and 2007 for the PC (so let's say it had a 4 1/2 year dev. time if we count the PC port) which was comparable to DA:O, and sold 5,376,042 year-to-date. That's a dev. time comparable to the ME series, with similar sales.

The longer development cycle for a game like Oblivion actually still makes it comparable to the ME series, and has Oblivion selling 1,638,623 more copies than DA:O (though obviously Oblivion was out longer).

tl;dr:



DA:O sold more units, but is not as profitable as the ME series. So the model had to change.

Modifié par In Exile, 20 juin 2011 - 04:32 .

[Davasar]

Harid wrote...

People still blame EA.

Fantastic naivety.

Except there is a ton of evidense showing that EA is indeed a killer of franchises and studios.  Look it up sometime, and you'll find you are the one who is indeed naive.

[Imrahil_]

DA2 is the spiritual successor to Hillsfar.

[AlanC9]

Heh. That series tanked with Azure Bonds anyway.

[GodWood]

[spam post removed]

Modifié par Stanley Woo, 22 juin 2011 - 07:48 .

[Harid]

GodWood wrote...

Davasar wrote...

Harid wrote...
People still blame EA.

Fantastic naivety.

Except there is a ton of evidence showing that EA is indeed a killer of franchises and studios.  Look it up sometime, and you'll find you are the one who is indeed naive.

And there is a ton of evidence that shows the EA direction, and the Bioware direction are pretty close to the same thing, and have been that way prior to the merger.

Greg Zeschuk wrote...
IGN: Do you think attitudes are changing about RPGs? It's like Blue Dragon, which is a very traditional Japanese RPG but it's pretty much been panned in the West.


Greg Zeschuk: People's tastes are changing now. For example, we're currently having a debate in the office about whether San Andreas is an RPG - which is a fun discussion. I think that it's actually similar to Mass Effect but  we're coming at the same core experience from very different directions.


IGN: What do you think about GTA IV, from what you've seen or heard?


Greg Zeschuk: I saw one trailer and the character was interacting in a way that looks quite a lot like Mass Effect. Rockstar is trying to create and action game, whereas as we are creating an action RPG. Somewhere in the middle is the holy grail and I think that all developers are trying to find it.

This was stated in September 2007 iirc, which was before the merger.  But hey, not championing for a company that has made it clear to cut out RPG elements from the games to appeal to the mass market is some how naive.  Right.   I think a lot of people forget that John Riccitiello (EA's current CEO) was actually running Elevation Partners before he went to EA (the company that owned Bioware) and that Ray and Greg were not only a large factor in the direction Bioware was going, but also are actually large parts of where EA is going. BioWare was even pioneering a lot of what modern DLC is with Neverwinter Night's buyable mini-campaigns, and Ray is surprisingly close to being a top executive across all of EA at this point.

While it is delusional at this point to keep blaming EA, I think it's always wise to remember that a lot of the company's top management is essentially BioWare's management at this point, and that perhaps, just perhaps, the blame falls on Bioware.

Modifié par Harid, 21 juin 2011 - 04:49 .

[Realmzmaster]

DAO was supposed to be the spiritual successor to BG2. Bioware never said the remaining games in the series would be. I remember that forum mates blasted DAO for not being the spiritual successor to BG2.

Spiritual successor does not mean carbon copy. Spiritual successor is marketing hype.

[Genly]

In Exile wrote...

I did the math in another thread. DA:O sold something like 700,000 more units than ME2 and about 1,000,000 more units than ME1.
...
DA:O sold more units, but is not as profitable as the ME series. So the model had to change.

While I agree that DA:O probably cost more than either ME and it may be less profitable than other Bioware games, how do you estimate the costs as a function of development time? There are a lot of factors involved that could make that not linear (either more or less than linear).

[AlanC9]

Harid wrote...
BioWare was even pioneering a lot of what modern DLC is with Neverwinter Night's buyable mini-campaigns

I'm glad someone besides me remembers that.

[FieryDove]

Genly wrote...

In Exile wrote...

I did the math in another thread. DA:O sold something like 700,000 more units than ME2 and about 1,000,000 more units than ME1.
...
DA:O sold more units, but is not as profitable as the ME series. So the model had to change.

While I agree that DA:O probably cost more than either ME and it may be less profitable than other Bioware games, how do you estimate the costs as a function of development time? There are a lot of factors involved that could make that not linear (either more or less than linear).

Maybe it would be cheaper and much of a time saver to borrow an engine rather than build one from scratch DAO in-house engine vs ME series borrowed/tweaked engine. No? Yes?

I think a good amount of time at first was designing the world/lore for DA. After that was done the next games would not have to deal with that aspect. If they plan to use the current engine and keep doing near full redesigns each intasllment, well everything else is on the chopping block to make a profit. Because if they can't make a profit no more games, at least in that series.

AlanC9 wrote...

Harid wrote...
BioWare was even pioneering a lot of what modern DLC is with Neverwinter Night's buyable mini-campaigns

I'm glad someone besides me remembers that.

I bought them all but only was able to play two due to bad internet at the time. I don't even think they can be played anymore unless a patch was made to take out the server checks. ah well.

Modifié par FieryDove, 21 juin 2011 - 05:34 .

[GodWood]

Harid hit the nail on the head

[Persephone]

Realmzmaster wrote...

I remember that forum mates blasted DAO for not being the spiritual successor to BG2.

Ah yes. When it was called "Dumbed down trash" as well as "This is the sh*t!" and other such gems. The Manson trailer esp. made many raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaage. I even remember people trashing Alistair in favor of......*Snerks*....Anomen.

Selective memory and nostalgia = A deadly mixture

[valkulon]

Mad Method wrote...
I get the feeling that you're not reading my post. That you're not responding to me. That you're responding to your own perception of a faceless mass of Bioware haters out there and because I happen to dislike Bioware's current decisions and spin-heavy rhetoric, you decide that what applies there applies to me. First, I do not think Bioware is engaged in "some massive cover up." And I never said I did. Second, I said they couldn't directly admit their mistakes. And it's true. Whenever Bioware admits the mistake, they spin in a way that drains all sincerity out of it. Like the gem from Muzyka where he said "But also there were a lot of fans of the original Dragon Age: Origins who weren't as happy with it. Maybe they were looking for more of the same, and it was different and innovative in ways they weren't expecting." which is not even an admission of mistakes. He basically said "It's not our fault for messing up design. It's the gamers' fault for being too feeble-minded to enjoy 'innovation'." Or Laidlaw who proceeded to discuss his pride in making DA2 suck because it had more space with potential. Not that I care much for sincere admissions either.

I simply expect that if Bioware posts I will have to read more nonsense like that or assurances that they're now going to somehow make it good next time. I don't need to read that. It does nothing for me. If they want to post, I'd rather they have something new and actually informative to say, and I'm not expecting that.

I am responding to all the BW/EA/DA2 haters out there. You're obviously one of them. Your post started off pretty decent all the way up to the end when you decided to act like a petulent child and show zero respect to other people.

And yes you're insinuating that BW isn't willing to tell the so called truth about their game. Your examples of Muzyka and Laidlaw are seriously flawed. You're twisting their words to your logic. Muzyka stated that he feels some people are disappointed with the game because they did new stuff and he's completely right, you're obviously one of those people, yet I am one of those people who liked the new stuff. Laidlaw came and said he was proud of what the DA2 team did and they should be. Yet again you twist his words to your logic. That he was proud that they made DA2 into a **** game. That is your opinion and it is no where near fact.

If your opinion of BW is so jaded why continue to play their games or even come to these boards?

When they say they will fix wave combat for DA3, that's a problem. This is what I mean by solving problems with the same thinking used when making them. You see, there is no real demand for "fixed wave combat" but there is definitely demand for "no more wave combat" in DA3.

Is there such a demand? I know I said I didn't enjoy the way they implemented it in DA2, but I also said that if they implemented it in a smart way for DA3 I wouldn't mind it. I did also say that I wouldn't mind a more tradational combat encounter system as well.

This forum does not host everyone that played DA2. Threads that demand wave system to be removed even if they draw one hundred responses is only a very small fraction of the people who played DA2. So your demand is very weak indeed.

I'd sooner say that the choices had less impact because Bioware isn't very good at giving impactful choices. ME2, for instance, made Wrex's death rather pointless. Kill him and his magic brother is there. Situation's mostly the same. When it comes to impactful choices, The Witcher 2 and Age of Decadence put some proper effort into it.

In the current games I honestly cannot dispute this as with most of the impactful choices we're given haven't been fully resloved yet. Perhaps BW might take a cue from the designers of The Witcher 2 in the future and make sure there is an obvious impact for making a choice.

This is why I say you're not reponding to me but your own perception of the Bioware hater. First, did I say it should please everyone? I'm saying it's an RPG trying to please the non-RPG gamers. Second, do you see a DA2 logo on my account? Perhaps I did not buy DA2. Third, did I say I was outraged, angry, any of that? Most I did was swear a little. And I'm not outraged at this. Just plain disappointed.

I don't see what's wrong with BW trying to expand thier product as well as bringing a genre to a whole new audience who might never play it because it's something normally outside their interest.

Obviously you felt it should please you since you're quite inflamed to twist the meaning of words from the designers mouths.

You have me dead to rights about not having the DA2 logo on your account. Which can lead me to the conclusion you borrowed it, you bought it but didn't activate it on your account, or you pirated it to even possibly try it before you bought it.

Whatever you did do honestly doesn't matter. If you were disappointed just say you're disappointed, but do so in a respectful manner. Not that petulant child rant at the end of your opening post.

Modifié par Valhart, 21 juin 2011 - 09:37 .

[aftohsix]

You've run out of things to whine about so you're picking on the logos now!

[Kaneda Kei]

It got aids, dragon aids.
Sadly the second one killed it for me.

[Il Divo]

I actually prefer the logo they went with for DA:O.

[In Exile]

Genly wrote...
While I agree that DA:O probably cost more than either ME and it may be less profitable than other Bioware games, how do you estimate the costs as a function of development time? There are a lot of factors involved that could make that not linear (either more or less than linear).

Dummy numbers (a friend runs a small software company, so I have a general idea of the costs) and the credits page of ME, ME2 and DA:O, DA2. You can come up with a rough estimate. That's all it is.

And keep in mind, I'm reasoning backwards. If DA:O was Bioware's best selling game and EA is focused on ROI, why not keep DA:O and recycle the formula to death?

[Davasar]

Oh..I'm sorry.

EA never destroyed any franchises or studios. I was completely wrong. They have always kept true to the fans core base and thus, upheld sales and those studios are alive and well.

I mean, look at how great Bullfrog is doing. And Westwood. They are the epitome of what EA can do when they put their attention on something like they did for DA2.

Modifié par Davasar, 22 juin 2011 - 07:31 .

[Davasar]

In Exile wrote...
why not keep DA:O and recycle the formula to death?

This has been said a billion times, but EA/Bioware appologists ignore it.

So...in the hopes that someone will actually fathom and understand this, here goes:

They don't need to "recycle the formula".

1. They can tell more stories that are actually sequel related rather then having cheap/forced cameos in a weak attempt to molify DAO fans

2.  Improve what was bad about the first game
3.  Improve the mediocre parts of the first game
4. Enhance the good parts of the first game

None of this involves recycling.  They clearly did not want to do these things for many of the reasons you stated which boils down to:

Disingenuous and lazy effort for a cash grab

And there you go.  They could have done a lot, and chose not and with a little subtle deception got enough people to buy (and regret) their product.

Somehow I dont think it will work for the next game of DA, if there is one.

I would be happy to see the franshise die rather then see another travesty.

[Harid]

Davasar wrote...

Oh..I'm sorry.

EA never destroyed any franchises or studios. I was completely wrong. They have always kept true to the fans core base and thus, upheld sales and those studios are alive and well.

I mean, look at how great Bullfrog is doing. And Westwood. They are the epitome of what EA can do when they put their attention on something like they did for DA2.

Don't give a damn about other studios in this scenario.  We are talking about Bioware.

But keep repeating yourself when I bring facts to the table and keep defending a company that could not care less about you.  It'll get you old cprgs like you want.

[In Exile]

Davasar wrote...
This has been said a billion times, but EA/Bioware appologists ignore it.

So...in the hopes that someone will actually fathom and understand this, here goes:

They don't need to "recycle the formula".

1. They can tell more stories that are actually sequel related rather then having cheap/forced cameos in a weak attempt to molify DAO fans

2.  Improve what was bad about the first game
3.  Improve the mediocre parts of the first game
4. Enhance the good parts of the first game

None of this involves recycling.  They clearly did not want to do these things for many of the reasons you stated which boils down to:

Disingenuous and lazy effort for a cash grab

That's the whole point. I'm saying: if EA was going to make more $$$ by making DA:O2, why not do it? A quick cash-in? That works for maybe one quarter and then you tank your property. It's possible EA could want this, but it's a strategy of epic-stupid proportions. 

And there you go.  They could have done a lot, and chose not and with a little subtle deception got enough people to buy (and regret) their product.

As I said repeatedly - with the business model EA has, they would never have done it.

[Nozybidaj]

In Exile wrote...
That's the whole point. I'm saying: if EA was going to make more $$$ by making DA:O2, why not do it? A quick cash-in? That works for maybe one quarter and then you tank your property. It's possible EA could want this, but it's a strategy of epic-stupid proportions.

I still think the only driving force here was the need of a quick cash injection to fund the final stage of TOR development (so yes, cash grab).  DA2 was probably more profitable if all you are worried about is upcoming installment.  If you are looking long term a DA:O2 might have been more profitable since it wouldn't have tanked your IP and killed customer expectations for possibilities of a 3, 4, 5, and so on.  I don't really think EA cares about any possible DA3.  If TOR tanks you aren't going to ever see it anyway.

[Davasar]

In Exile wrote...

Davasar wrote...
This has been said a billion times, but EA/Bioware appologists ignore it.

So...in the hopes that someone will actually fathom and understand this, here goes:

They don't need to "recycle the formula".

1. They can tell more stories that are actually sequel related rather then having cheap/forced cameos in a weak attempt to molify DAO fans

2.  Improve what was bad about the first game
3.  Improve the mediocre parts of the first game
4. Enhance the good parts of the first game

None of this involves recycling.  They clearly did not want to do these things for many of the reasons you stated which boils down to:

Disingenuous and lazy effort for a cash grab

That's the whole point. I'm saying: if EA was going to make more $$$ by making DA:O2, why not do it? A quick cash-in? That works for maybe one quarter and then you tank your property. It's possible EA could want this, but it's a strategy of epic-stupid proportions. 

And there you go.  They could have done a lot, and chose not and with a little subtle deception got enough people to buy (and regret) their product.

As I said repeatedly - with the business model EA has, they would never have done it.

And they've done it...over and over again.  Look at their track record.

[Davasar]

Harid wrote...

Davasar wrote...

Oh..I'm sorry.

EA never destroyed any franchises or studios. I was completely wrong. They have always kept true to the fans core base and thus, upheld sales and those studios are alive and well.

I mean, look at how great Bullfrog is doing. And Westwood. They are the epitome of what EA can do when they put their attention on something like they did for DA2.

Don't give a damn about other studios in this scenario.  We are talking about Bioware.

But keep repeating yourself when I bring facts to the table and keep defending a company that could not care less about you.  It'll get you old cprgs like you want.

Facts?  That EA never destroyed franchises or studios?  Really?

Check history bud.  EA has destroyed franchises and studios. 

They didnt care about the people that liked Bullfrog and Westwood games either.  And both those studios and their franchises have gone way of the Dodo.

So tell me, where am I wrong here?

Answer:  I'm right. 

Get it through your head:  EAs has a proven track record of destoying things when they do not pay attention to their loyal fanbase.

As I said, I for one hope DA as a franchise dies;  Further crappy games will be a travesty to a once promising IP.

[AlanC9]

Davasar wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Davasar wrote...
This has been said a billion times, but EA/Bioware appologists ignore it.

So...in the hopes that someone will actually fathom and understand this, here goes:

They don't need to "recycle the formula".

1. They can tell more stories that are actually sequel related rather then having cheap/forced cameos in a weak attempt to molify DAO fans

2.  Improve what was bad about the first game
3.  Improve the mediocre parts of the first game
4. Enhance the good parts of the first game

None of this involves recycling.  They clearly did not want to do these things for many of the reasons you stated which boils down to:

Disingenuous and lazy effort for a cash grab

That's the whole point. I'm saying: if EA was going to make more $$$ by making DA:O2, why not do it? A quick cash-in? That works for maybe one quarter and then you tank your property. It's possible EA could want this, but it's a strategy of epic-stupid proportions. 

And there you go.  They could have done a lot, and chose not and with a little subtle deception got enough people to buy (and regret) their product.

As I said repeatedly - with the business model EA has, they would never have done it.

And they've done it...over and over again.  Look at their track record.

Are you arguing that EA just likes to destroy franchises?