194 réponses à ce sujet

[Aaleel]

The only reason DA:O took so long was because they had to create the engine. If DA2 had been the first game and they had to build the engine, or if they had built a new engine that could handle actually putting a lot of bodies in Kirkwall and making it lively.

With the sales DA2 got the IP probably would have died right out the box.

Edit and someone said DA:O sold 3.7 million.

It sold 1,267,370 on the PS3 and 2,077,419 on the Xbox.

That's over 3.3 million just on consoles, and though I haven't seen any PC numbers, I'm sure it sold more than 400k on the PC.

Modifié par Aaleel, 20 juin 2011 - 06:48 .

[twincast]

MorrigansLove wrote...

I'm just waiting on the DLC, as they have said they made it with all the feedback in mind.

Yeah, sure. I wouldn't believe them even if it they were talking an expansion pack, let alone DLC.

[Bostur]

That was a lot of words for saying very little.

"Games that are sequels are unfairly criticised," CEO Todd Hollenshead said. "One regard is they're not original. You can do a lot of original things in a sequel as long as you're consistent and true to the universe that game comes up in."

Of course you can do a lot of original things in a sequel. Unfortunately it almost never happens, because the main purpose of sequels is to milk the cash cow. Being original takes effort and thats something the big developers don't like to do these days.

Lets see, orginal sequels... I have to think really hard to come up with one.

"Day of the tentacle" was very original. "Dune 2" was very original, but that doesn't count as a sequel because it only had the name in common with the first one.

Actually sequels aren't original at all. And they are certainly not innovative.

[Sad Dragon]

Sequels are not a good or a bad idea in and of itself even in this industry -- though it certain has more benefits for the developers then a movie or literary sequel has for the film crew or an author. You don't have to create or get to know the game engine as you can use the same engine again -- in some but not all cases -- and you already have most of the mechanics down.

Sure DA2 changed things around a bit from DAO, but most of the changes are more cosmetic then anything -- look at the dialog wheel for example. The wheel itself isn't that much of a change mechanically but just another way of representing the dialogs. The paraphrasing aspects however make it seem more different than it really is. The voiced protagonist isn't really much of a change either in terms of the engine -- or at least they shouldn't have had to change much engine-wise for it unless they wanted to.

Now I don't recall much innovative about the game, in that I have seen all the new parts done in some other game before. Though credit where credit is due, they did try and polish and improve on those things (personalities in the dialog wheel for instance) and I do believe there is potential there, sadly development time got in the way. I'm going to end here as I have already written one dissertation about the various aspects of DA2 and no plans of writing another -- its a lot of work after all XD

So to sum up. I understand their point about sequels, though I think the innovative part is just marketing talk.

-TSD

[Nozybidaj]

In Exile wrote...

You don't understand. The profit margin isn't just about your raw sales number; it's about your development cost and sales. ME1 sold 2.7 million. ME2 sold 3 million. M1+ME2 sold 5.7 million. If DA3 sells 2.3 million, and DA4 sells 2.5 million, and DA:O3 sells 4.7 million, DA3+DA4 is more profitable (and looks better on your early returns, which pushes your stock value up!).

The goal isn't to sell 5 million. The goal is to not radically underperform compared to your own line of products.

I understand perfectly.  You're comparing a bit of apple's to oranges here.  DA:O profits would have been lower because of the extra development costs from building the new engine, assets, etc.  ME is using Unreal engine I believe (yes/no?) and didn't have this cost.  Nor would DA2 (or any following DA3/4/5/etc.) if they are using the same DA:O engine. 

Of course if that is the case (using the DA:O engine) then you have to extraoplate the cost of building that engine across the other games, making DA:O more profitable (and sequels less) for time spent as each succesive sequel is built on top of its technology spreading out the initial cost of that technology across multiple titles.

Then you could look at opportunity cost of each sequel, for example: Would having made a DA:O2 spending little time/money updating the engine be more or less profitable then spending time/money making large changes with DA2 assuming an even amount of sales.  Obviously in this case a DA:O2 would have been more profitable than DA2. 

If you assume doing so would have caused less bad press in the form of better meeting user expectations and better reviews because the systems in place were more polished than the rushed new systems all translating in larger sales for a DA:O2 than a DA2 the profitability of a DA:O2 is even greater still than a DA2.  Both the last two points become greater in DA:O's favor as each succesive title is created.

My point is you are using a lot of guess work there to try and prove the profitability of one game versus another without looking at other factors.

[AngryFrozenWater]

In Exile wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...
On the surface streamlining and innovation appear to be two different things, but if I look at them closely their main objectives are the same: Cost reduction. Here are some examples of streamlining and innovations:

That's the fundamental core of a major corporation. 

The voiced PC, companion armor and armor in loot are closely related. It's probably expensive to add voice acting to the PC, so other savings were needed to keep the budget healthy. By using a human only PC there is no need for race specific background history and dialogue. The cinematic animations are likely to be simplified because these don't have to account for the different sizes of other races. By using companion armor only there is no need to make the armor found in loot fit male and female elves and dwarfs.

To be fair to the cinematic direction, DA2 is by far the most cinematic of Bioware's games. And independent of the cost-reduction on race choice, I think the absence of racial choice is a better design decision in general. DA2 just didn't accomodate it well.

Again... Here is what I think: You may or may not like the human only PC and companion armor, but that's not the point. It's all about cost reduction. DA2 could have accomodated 3 races as well and improved them, but BW didn't opt for that. They have chosen the more cost effective route and easy way out instead: Cut the origins and the non-human PC races.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 20 juin 2011 - 07:02 .

[In Exile]

Edit and someone said DA:O sold 3.7 million.

It sold 1,267,370 on the PS3 and 2,077,419 on the Xbox.

That's over 3.3 million just on consoles, and though I haven't seen any PC numbers, I'm sure it sold more than 400k on the PC.

Why would you think it's more than 400k? VGChartz has it at about that much, and PC gaming isn't terribly huge. To give you an example, TW2 only sold 457,264 by VGChartz PC measure.

If we say that VG Charts is undervaluing PC numbers, why wouldn't it be doing that universally?

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

In Exile wrote...

Edit and someone said DA:O sold 3.7 million.

It sold 1,267,370 on the PS3 and 2,077,419 on the Xbox.

That's over 3.3 million just on consoles, and though I haven't seen any PC numbers, I'm sure it sold more than 400k on the PC.

Why would you think it's more than 400k? VGChartz has it at about that much, and PC gaming isn't terribly huge. To give you an example, TW2 only sold 457,264 by VGChartz PC measure.

If we say that VG Charts is undervaluing PC numbers, why wouldn't it be doing that universally?

Why wouldn't it be? That was not only the lead platform but at one point Origins was a PC exclusive. Folks that think PC games can't push high numbers apparently have never looked at Blizzard's sale numbers or haven't seen how well The Witcher 2 is doing while it still just a PC only title. Just as a couple examples.

The whole PC IS DYING bs has been said for a decade now and it hasn't died yet and won't.

[Aaleel]

In Exile wrote...

Edit and someone said DA:O sold 3.7 million.

It sold 1,267,370 on the PS3 and 2,077,419 on the Xbox.

That's over 3.3 million just on consoles, and though I haven't seen any PC numbers, I'm sure it sold more than 400k on the PC.

Why would you think it's more than 400k? VGChartz has it at about that much, and PC gaming isn't terribly huge. To give you an example, TW2 only sold 457,264 by VGChartz PC measure.

If we say that VG Charts is undervaluing PC numbers, why wouldn't it be doing that universally?

VGchartz is right if you're saying DA:O sold no digital copies.  Just like the Witcher 2, CDPR said they sold 400k the first week, they gave their own numbers.  VGchartz has it at 270k or so, so since VGchartz doesn't count digital downloads it's missing 130k worth of units.   

[In Exile]

Nozybidaj wrote..
I understand perfectly.  You're comparing a bit of apple's to oranges here.  DA:O profits would have been lower because of the extra development costs from building the new engine, assets, etc.  ME is using Unreal engine I believe (yes/no?) and didn't have this cost.  Nor would DA2 (or any following DA3/4/5/etc.) if they are using the same DA:O engine. 

ME1 had to pay to lease the Unreal engine, and then Bioware had to modify it to display a lot of assests that the Unreal engine by itself doesn't. You still had to build levels, design powers, motion capture, create cinematics, etc.

ME2 upgraded the engine, and ME3 is doing that again. Revamping, so to speak. I'm not a programmer, so I have no idea how much work (for example) improving the lighting with the Unreal engine might be.

Of course if that is the case (using the DA:O engine) then you have to extraoplate the cost of building that engine across the other games, making DA:O more profitable (and sequels less) for time spent as each succesive sequel is built on top of its technology spreading out the initial cost of that technology across multiple titles.

That's if your first game is succesful amd if the engine is reusable as a current gen. engine from release. DA:O2 wouldn't be able to get by with the same engine, given how much longer it would take to actually create content. DA2 was a much smaller game. How much work do you think it would take to make a game the size of DA:O? 3 years? 2.5 years? In that time, the engine is even more outdated, so you need to invest time into revamping it. You also need to improve and rework your basic gameplay.

Then you could look at opportunity cost of each sequel, for example: Would having made a DA:O2 spending little time/money updating the engine be more or less profitable then spending time/money making large changes with DA2 assuming an even amount of sales.  Obviously in this case a DA:O2 would have been more profitable than DA2. 

Why would you say that DA:O2 would be more profitable? DA:O2 would take more time developing. DA2 itself needed at least another 12 months of development time. Why do you think DA:O2 wouldn't need an extra 24 months of dev. time, given the need to create 6 new origins, integrate them into the plot, make sure the plot branches are stable, on top of (if you don't rework the egine) having to risk the game being poorly received because of outdated graphics?

If you assume doing so would have caused less bad press in the form of better meeting user expectations and better reviews because the systems in place were more polished than the rushed new systems all translating in larger sales for a DA:O2 than a DA2 the profitability of a DA:O2 is even greater still than a DA2.  Both the last two points become greater in DA:O's favor as each succesive title is created.

No, it isn't, because DA:O2 has to surpass DA:O significantly. DA2 was made on the cheap. A lot of places where DA2 cut costs (armour, single race PC, no origins) wouldn't be areas were DA:O2 could.

My point is you are using a lot of guess work there to try and prove the profitability of one game versus another without looking at other factors.

Not really. You can just go by all things being equal, and look at the problem with DA:O's design itself. Why do you (for example) think creating the engine would take 2 years, and not 1 year?

[In Exile]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...
Again... Here is what I think: You may or may not like the human only PC and companion armor, but that's not the point. It's all about cost reduction. DA2 could have accomodated 3 races as well and improved them, but BW didn't opt for that. They have chosen the more cost effective route and easy way out instead: Cut the origins and the non-human PC races.

Actually, I don't think DA2 could accomodate 3 races. I think DA:O failed to accomodate 3 races and overhyped supeficial differences, by cheating and separating the PC from the gameworld through a secret warrior order. I agree with you on the rationale, but I'm just saying this was one cost-cutting decision that I think also happens to be a good design decision.

[Akka le Vil]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

This is again an attempt to redefine the word innovation for marketing purposes, just as they did for streamlining. Nice campaign. They can do that as often as they like, but I am not falling for it. I view it as damage control.

Agree.
For all their talk about grandiose ideas like "innovation" and "taking risks" and the like, what I see is a game that was rushed, and which only aimed at a larger public. All the "risks" taken were just "let's make an action console game" because it's the actual trend and it's where everyone think the money is.
Rushed and dumbed down for the casual market : that's what the game is actually is, and they only try to disguise this as artistic concern.

Pathetic and despicable.

[jlb524]

In Exile wrote...

Actually, I don't think DA2 could accomodate 3 races. I think DA:O failed to accomodate 3 races and overhyped supeficial differences, by cheating and separating the PC from the gameworld through a secret warrior order. I agree with you on the rationale, but I'm just saying this was one cost-cutting decision that I think also happens to be a good design decision.

I agree.  IMO, Origins seems to play better/was designed for a human noble and the others (especially Dalish elves) just don't seem to fit as well. 

Modifié par jlb524, 20 juin 2011 - 07:19 .

[In Exile]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
Why wouldn't it be? That was not only the lead platform but at one point Origins was a PC exclusive. Folks that think PC games can't push high numbers apparently have never looked at Blizzard's sale numbers or haven't seen how well The Witcher 2 is doing while it still just a PC only title. Just as a couple examples.

Why wouldn't it be higher for ME1 and ME2, then?

It doesn't matter how much a game sells on PC to get a relative standing; it matters whethe or not there's any reason to believe it would sell relatively worse on the platform.

Since TW2 is a game with a clear console UI and a gamepad first design while it selling very well on PC (by your argument),why would the same apply to the ME series?

Aaleel wrote..
VGchartz is right if you're saying DA:O sold no
digital copies.  Just like the Witcher 2, CDPR said they sold 400k the
first week, they gave their own numbers.  VGchartz has it at 270k or so,
so since VGchartz doesn't count digital downloads it's missing 130k
worth of units.   

Why would we assume that DA:O would (as a % of total sales) outsell the ME series on PC? Think about it statistically: why is the population of digital download PC users different?

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

In Exile wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
Why wouldn't it be? That was not only the lead platform but at one point Origins was a PC exclusive. Folks that think PC games can't push high numbers apparently have never looked at Blizzard's sale numbers or haven't seen how well The Witcher 2 is doing while it still just a PC only title. Just as a couple examples.

Why wouldn't it be higher for ME1 and ME2, then?

It doesn't matter how much a game sells on PC to get a relative standing; it matters whethe or not there's any reason to believe it would sell relatively worse on the platform.

Since TW2 is a game with a clear console UI and a gamepad first design while it selling very well on PC (by your argument),why would the same apply to the ME series?

Aaleel wrote..
VGchartz is right if you're saying DA:O sold no
digital copies.  Just like the Witcher 2, CDPR said they sold 400k the
first week, they gave their own numbers.  VGchartz has it at 270k or so,
so since VGchartz doesn't count digital downloads it's missing 130k
worth of units.   

Why would we assume that DA:O would (as a % of total sales) outsell the ME series on PC? Think about it statistically: why is the population of digital download PC users different?

That you're using VGChartz as a difinitive source of sales numbers in the first place when they don't do digital or PC sales most of the time is kinda fruitless to begin with.

That's without mentioning the console focus with the Mass Effect series marketing to begin with.

[Aaleel]

In Exile wrote...

Aaleel wrote..
VGchartz is right if you're saying DA:O sold no
digital copies.  Just like the Witcher 2, CDPR said they sold 400k the
first week, they gave their own numbers.  VGchartz has it at 270k or so,
so since VGchartz doesn't count digital downloads it's missing 130k
worth of units.   

Why would we assume that DA:O would (as a % of total sales) outsell the ME series on PC? Think about it statistically: why is the population of digital download PC users different?

What are you talking about, who said anything about the ME series.  All I said was that no digital downloads are counted on VGchartz, so Origins had a lot more than 400k sales on the PC.

Modifié par Aaleel, 20 juin 2011 - 07:24 .

[fchopin]

MorrigansLove wrote...

I agree. The conversation wheel NEEDS TO DIE!

You have my vote.
 
I am willing to pay Bioware money or buy two copies of the next game if they do.

[Nozybidaj]

In Exile wrote...
Why would you say that DA:O2 would be more profitable? DA:O2 would take more time developing.

This is where our disconnect is. Why would a DA:O2 take more time developing?  That doesn't even make sense. In fact, if we assume the same amount of new content added between DA:O2 and DA2 it would have taken even less time to develop (whether you think the time it did take is enough or not is irrelevant).

For some reason you are assuming that each succesive DA:O sequel would have taken more time than any other sequel. There wasn't a whole lot that would have needed changed from DA:O to a DA:O2 as far as upgrading the engine is concerned.

DA2 changed a lot of things that have been met with a rather lukewarm reception at best. if you attribute those changes to the decrease in overall sales, how well spent was that money exactly?

Modifié par Nozybidaj, 20 juin 2011 - 07:26 .

[alex90c]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

In Exile wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...
On the surface streamlining and innovation appear to be two different things, but if I look at them closely their main objectives are the same: Cost reduction. Here are some examples of streamlining and innovations:

That's the fundamental core of a major corporation. 

The voiced PC, companion armor and armor in loot are closely related. It's probably expensive to add voice acting to the PC, so other savings were needed to keep the budget healthy. By using a human only PC there is no need for race specific background history and dialogue. The cinematic animations are likely to be simplified because these don't have to account for the different sizes of other races. By using companion armor only there is no need to make the armor found in loot fit male and female elves and dwarfs.

To be fair to the cinematic direction, DA2 is by far the most cinematic of Bioware's games. And independent of the cost-reduction on race choice, I think the absence of racial choice is a better design decision in general. DA2 just didn't accomodate it well.

Again... Here is what I think: You may or may not like the human only PC and companion armor, but that's not the point. It's all about cost reduction. DA2 could have accomodated 3 races as well and improved them, but BW didn't opt for that. They have chosen the more cost effective route and easy way out instead: Cut the origins and the non-human PC races.

I just don't understand why Bioware would have to cut costs when DA2 cost 20% of the amount it took to make DA:O. Cutting things out at that point is just being cheap.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Aaleel wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Aaleel wrote..
VGchartz is right if you're saying DA:O sold no
digital copies.  Just like the Witcher 2, CDPR said they sold 400k the
first week, they gave their own numbers.  VGchartz has it at 270k or so,
so since VGchartz doesn't count digital downloads it's missing 130k
worth of units.   

Why would we assume that DA:O would (as a % of total sales) outsell the ME series on PC? Think about it statistically: why is the population of digital download PC users different?

What are you talking about, who said anything about the ME series.  All I said was that no digital downloads are counted on VGchartz, so Origins had a lot more than 400k sales on the PC.

He's deflecting the arguement because he's losing it.  I'm not entirely sure what ME's numbers have to do with PC sales of Origin at all either.

[AngryFrozenWater]

In Exile wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...
Again... Here is what I think: You may or may not like the human only PC and companion armor, but that's not the point. It's all about cost reduction. DA2 could have accomodated 3 races as well and improved them, but BW didn't opt for that. They have chosen the more cost effective route and easy way out instead: Cut the origins and the non-human PC races.

Actually, I don't think DA2 could accomodate 3 races. I think DA:O failed to accomodate 3 races and overhyped supeficial differences, by cheating and separating the PC from the gameworld through a secret warrior order. I agree with you on the rationale, but I'm just saying this was one cost-cutting decision that I think also happens to be a good design decision.

I am glad that you like it. I don't. Maybe the next poster has another opinion. To me the reason why you like it is totally irrelevant. At best it is a byproduct of the cost savings operation: A rationalization which marketing loves.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 20 juin 2011 - 07:31 .

[Persephone]

Yellow Words wrote...

Cutlass Jack wrote...

Well I think 'Awakening' is a perfect example of what you get when you play it safe and still manage to be unsatisfying. Personally, even if I don't love every change, I'm glad they were willing to take risks.

They clearly need to adjust the formula and find middle ground on round three though. And I'm pretty sure they know that too.

I agree. And that's why I'm excited about future Dragon Age installments.

Same here.

Look at the Might and Magic series. In VI, they created an engine that was a SMASH HIT. The fans loved it, the critics loved it. They then basically used carbon copies of it up until IX.........getting MOCKED for listening to the core "fans" / Laziness / lack of progress and innovation...... When they finally ditched  it in X, it was too late. The franchise died because VIII and IX were mockeries of the genius of VI BECAUSE they kept it almost EXACTLY as it was. Awakening remined me of M&M VIII (Not mechanics or story wise) in its basic "DAO was Mac & Cheese. Here have Mac & Cheese with more Cheese."

[Dormiglione]

In Exile wrote...

If you want a real answer, here's what DA2 was designed to do: put Bioware in a better position to have a reasonable profit margin in the DA series. DA:O took 54 months to develop and sold 3.7 million units. DA2 took 18 months to develop and sold 1.4 million units.

That means DA:O sold 68,000 units per month in development; DA2 sold 77,700 units per month in development. The margin is likely higher on DA2, especially with 36 months less of salary, lease, etc. that had to be paid for DA2.

More importantly, DA2 took less time. In the time that DA:O was developed 4 1/2 years, ME1 and ME2 were developed. I'd wager that Bioware likely made 35 + million on the ME series than DA:O, and sold as much as Oblivion with the same dev. time. 

If you look on the financial side, then yes, i think that DA2 was more profitable as DAO. But at which cost? DAO costed more to develop but generated a big fan base. I would guess that much of the 400'000 preorders were thanks to the fan base of DAO.
I really believe that DA2 was more profitable as DAO, but the price was to disappoint a lot of the DAO fan base who are not willing to preorder anymore. DA2 polarized the mass instead of getting them together. I dont think that it was intended to alienate so much people. But it happened.
My advise to Bioware is to search the middleground between DAO and DA2.

[twincast]

Awakening was bad because of its changes, not because of what it kept.