221 réponses à ce sujet

[John Epler]

Let's get off this tangent, shall we? No one is going to convince anyone else, and it's become rather less than civil.

[IanPolaris]

FitScotGaymer wrote...

Right KillrB and Polaris.

You are determined to believe as you please and present yourselves as absolutely right no matter what; and that YOUR OPINION is cast iron fact.

Fine.

It isnt but fine whatever.

But Polaris - there is absolutely no reason to resort to being rude.

I wasn't.  I was stating a fact.  DA2 has not met it's defined targets (defined by Bioware and not me I hasten to add).  Saying so is not rude.  Nor is it opinion when I point out that the actual data (the facts) show this.  The only assumption I am making is that Bioware did not lie about their targets before DA2 was released, but the amount of dead inventory on the shelf argues that they didn't lie.  Ergo, DA2 is an objective failure at least in any business I've heard of.

-Polaris

[MrProliferation]

KilrB wrote...

FitScotGaymer wrote...

Right KillrB and Polaris.

You are determined to believe as you please and present yourselves as absolutely right no matter what; and that YOUR OPINION is cast iron fact.

Fine.

It isnt but fine whatever.

But Polaris - there is absolutely no reason to resort to being rude.

1. Please get my "nick" right.

2. My opinion has no more/less bearing on the amount of unmoved, and unmoving, DA2 product than yours.

3. That product still isn't moving for all intents and purposes.

4. You're not in manufacturing are you?

Ever heard of Steam? Or digital distribution in general? There's no "product" to move much anymore. It doesn't have to move because it doesn't have to be produced. Digital downloads cost nothing and also even punching out some DVDs with software even only costs pennies to produce. Sure, the console games are often bought that way but even that is rapidly changing and most PC copies are being bought digitally. Manufacturing has little to do with it. In the case of any IP, once you've paid the development cost, the marginal cost of producing units is almost nothing or, in the case of digital downloads, is actually nothing. You ask about shelves, who even walks into a store anymore?

But go ahead and send me the link to the sales number thread so I can look at imaginary numbers made up by a bunch of people who don't know what they're talking about with the rest of the trolls.

[bEVEsthda]

Large parts of F.M.'s  pr-speak didn't annoy me at all. One has to understand that he has to say things like that. Not because someone forces him, but because there is no point in bashing your own goods. Particularly not since they don't consider themselves done with DA2 (in my judgement that's a poor choice, wasted effort, but BW has to come up with their own solutions to the DA2 crisis). Perhaps he should have been clearer about acknowledging that "some fans" were negative towards the game. As it is it seems he want to tell us they will do something in regards of the complaints, but want to keep it a secret between himself and that part of the audience.

But all that doesn't annoy me the least. What did raise my blood a degree or two though, was his emphatic claims (did I hear a note of obstinate hysteria in that slightly raised voice?) that various things most people consider awful vandalism upon the Dragon Age of DA:O are great improvements to DA. This bodes ill.

(Of course I know that the expression "most people" will be challenged. But my experience is that outside this forum the judgement on DA2 is, if anything, even harsher. Just look at the dislikes on that YouTube video, a whopping 65%.)

I think there's a danger in not recognizing that DA2 was a failure. One doesn't need to publicly admit it, but one needs to understand it. Any comparision on sales and development times of DA2 and DA:O need to take in that a lot of the buyers of DA2 weren't pleased. It achieved its sales because of DA:O. And it's not just the preorders which are usually mentioned. Other buyers purchased DA2 because of DA:O too. A lot of people are simply not in the habit of preordering games, even if they have made up their minds to buy a sequel long in advance.

Such a comparison of development times should also consider that the time of DA:O wasn't spent effectively. 1 - A new engine was developed. 2 - First it ran on backburner. 3 - Then it was delayed another year (and probably considerably gutted) in order to fit it into a console.
It should also consider that just because you need a shorter development cycle, that development time doesn't need to be largely spent on completely remaking everything and coming up with a totally different kind of game.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 15 juillet 2011 - 07:54 .

[Bryy_Miller]

MonkeyLungs wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Ringo12 wrote...

Dariuszp wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...

The fact that you literally had to play the game twice to get all the story (the dragon choice at the end especially annoyed me) was what soured me to TW2.

I was thinking that this is best part of the whole game. 

Same here but I guess people like him would prefer to be spoon fed all the information and lore the game has to offer. 

Ringo, I got no idea why you feel the need to belittle those that didn't like something you did. It's getting to be offensive. I mean, I'm beginning to think you made this thread just to make fun of people.

 Bioware doesn't like to do true branching gameplay precisely because of comments like your Brvvy_Miller.

So its okay to insult someone's intelligence if a video game mechanic you like is spoken ill of? 

And way to make me "the bad guy". BW will do what it wants regardless of anything else. It is up to them to interpret fan feedback, same as CDP.

[Raanz]

IanPolaris wrote...

You need to get out more.  If your product doesn't make it's corporate targets, then it is a failure by definition.  Thus DA2 is a failure.  End-of-discussion.

-Polaris

I'm sorry Polaris, but your statement is wrong.  Have you worked in the game industry?  Do you know how targets are set in regards to brick and mortar sales, digital distribution, initial resale orders, merchandising, licensing?  You are playing with symantics.  Yes, if you "fail" to meet a target number, you, by definition, fail.  BUT, targets are set all of the time, we have no idea what Bioware's targets were in relation to the product being a financial success or failure.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that DA2 didn't cost over $60 million dollars to make.  You had the figures, or some figures, they sold, what.....1.5 million copies?  If my company spent $30 million on a game, and within the span of 6 months, it returned over $90M in revenue...I'm a happy camper.   I might have nightmares about the bad reviews, but I would jot it down and save it for the next creative development meeting.

[billy the squid]

It is unlikely to have returned over $90 million, or amounts in that ratio, in revenue as the sales and price of DA2 dropped like a rock after the first 2 weeks. Heavy reductions in price are derived from the retailer trying to get rid of stock. The price that the consumer paid is not the price that EA charged the retailerfor the product, who also has to profit as well.

Neither, does it account for distribution costs unless we are using the faulty premise that no one actually orders retail copies anymore and all sales are done digitally. Digital orders although growing still represent a fraction of retail sales. Then accounting for development costs, overheads, royalty payments to Microsoft and Sony for use of the platform, packaing, marketing etc.

Not to mention, contractual obligations between EA and the retailers regarding buy back clauses and credit arrangements for unsold copies or over orders which all come out of EA's pocket after the company report came out.

It is not so much an issue of it failed because it missed the targets set by EA, rather what did the target represent? EA may determine what they see as fiscally viable by those targets, such failure equates to a failure of the product to fulfil its purpose, whatever that may be. DA2 is likely to have made a profit due the lower development costs. Yet, if the profit margin misses the projections then is the direction and the product a viable avenue for future investment when the funds could have been used elsewhere which would have given a better cost to earnings ratio. Especially, if one considers the level of leverage that EA has as a company and the requirement to service that debt from development revenues.

There are also issues of opportunity cost, was it worth producing the game? What did it cost you in terms of other projects which could have developed at a similar expense or time fame, or even wasted cost in production of DA2 when increased development cycle and expenses on a similar product to its predecessor may have yielded greater revenue, which now has to be funded from other revenue streams if the income from the product released is not sufficient.

Particularly, if the more intangable factors such as brand association and consumer prefrences have been tarnished by the release, it does not bode so well for future itinerations of the franchise. So, the realised profit is smaller than one would have believed. The constant claims that DA2 is fine and it hasn't failed because segments of the market liked it and the developers got lots of positive comments on the direction, is irrelevant if the product failed to attract a large enough market segment to be financially viable.

Modifié par billy the squid, 15 juillet 2011 - 09:27 .

[The dead fish]

The numbers do not matter. And Dragon Age II is sold correctly or not either.

From all Bioware games, there never been so mixed reception, never been so much polarized opinion, often into extremes. Dragon Age is also one of the worst notes. It is good, but she declined.

This is a warning, if they continue on this slope. To them to consider if they are satisfied or not with the results they have, but what is certain is that the next Dragon Age will be followed, monitored and will determine the rise or the decline of this universe.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 15 juillet 2011 - 09:13 .

[IanPolaris]

Raanz,

Unless you want to submit that Bioware lied about it's targets for DA2 (which is unknowable at this point, but I am assuming they didn't), then we know what the targets were for DA2. If you don't make the targets, your product as failed. I don't see what this is so hard to grok for some of you.

This should not be interpreted as being anti-Bioware or even necessarily anti-DA2. Rather when a product fails, it's incumbant on the company to understand why, but to do that Bioware needs to admit at least to itself that the product has in fact failed or nothing will improve. I fear that Bioware is still in denial when it comes to DA2 and the Legacy Demo has accentuated those fears as did the F's commentary both in the Demo and here.

-Polaris

[Edit:  Misspelled ID to whom I was responding.  No it was not deliberate]

Modifié par IanPolaris, 15 juillet 2011 - 09:22 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

IanPolaris wrote...

Raantz,

lol not sure if deliberate.

[Addai]

IanPolaris wrote...

Raanz,

Unless you want to submit that Bioware lied about it's targets for DA2 (which is unknowable at this point, but I am assuming they didn't), then we know what the targets were for DA2. If you don't make the targets, your product as failed. I don't see what this is so hard to grok for some of you.

This should not be interpreted as being anti-Bioware or even necessarily anti-DA2. Rather when a product fails, it's incumbant on the company to understand why, but to do that Bioware needs to admit at least to itself that the product has in fact failed or nothing will improve. I fear that Bioware is still in denial when it comes to DA2 and the Legacy Demo has accentuated those fears as did the F's commentary both in the Demo and here.

-Polaris

[Edit:  Misspelled ID to whom I was responding.  No it was not deliberate]

Give them some credit.  They're not complete blocks.  The stuff you shovel in your marketing is never the same as how you evaluate internally- that's true in any industry, I'm sure it's the case here.  Best foot forward, and all that.  I'm sure they'd like to be able to say they hit their targets but how realistic they thought those targets were in the first place, we have no clue.  So we have no idea whether according to their internal criteria, they consider it an overall win, a flop, or somewhere in between.

Reading between the lines, they think they've got a formula that will win in the long run, despite whatever flubs in execution there were with DA2.  Naturally we don't have to agree with them.  For instance I think this article has some funny insights into the things newer gamers want- more control over their game, not less- story but not more cutscenes etc.  NSF bad language.

Modifié par Addai67, 15 juillet 2011 - 09:47 .

[Morroian]

KilrB wrote...
Universal acclaim and acceptance is what we are hearing from Bioware and EA. <_<

Only not but don't let that stop you from inventing stuff that not even David SIlverman has said.

[Morroian]

Raanz wrote...

I'm sorry Polaris, but your statement is wrong.  Have you worked in the game industry?  Do you know how targets are set in regards to brick and mortar sales, digital distribution, initial resale orders, merchandising, licensing?  You are playing with symantics.  Yes, if you "fail" to meet a target number, you, by definition, fail.  BUT, targets are set all of the time, we have no idea what Bioware's targets were in relation to the product being a financial success or failure.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that DA2 didn't cost over $60 million dollars to make.  You had the figures, or some figures, they sold, what.....1.5 million copies?  If my company spent $30 million on a game, and within the span of 6 months, it returned over $90M in revenue...I'm a happy camper.   I might have nightmares about the bad reviews, but I would jot it down and save it for the next creative development meeting.

In actual fact in terms of wholesale sales its actually well over 2m, AFAIK when I last looked EA doesn't have a return policy so the sales to EA are those wholesale sales. The effect of retail sales will be no DA3 more than DA2.

Plus digital sales are still not tracked. 

[IanPolaris]

Morroian wrote...
In actual fact in terms of wholesale sales its actually well over 2m, AFAIK when I last looked EA doesn't have a return policy so the sales to EA are those wholesale sales. The effect of retail sales will be no DA3 more than DA2.

Plus digital sales are still not tracked. 

That is the Sold-IN number which is what companies use to pad poor sales figures.  The real sales figure that matters is Sold-IN and VChartz has the best estimate for that (while they tracked it) at somthing south of 1.4 million.

-Polaris

[Persephone]

Morroian wrote...

KilrB wrote...
Universal acclaim and acceptance is what we are hearing from Bioware and EA. <_<

Only not but don't let that stop you from inventing stuff that not even David SIlverman has said.

It's been going on for 6 months now (Yes, pre-release......) and it's happening with ME3 now. I don't expect that lovely practice to stop anytime soon. Far too convenient to twist somebody's words to suit your own agenda.

And then accuse Bioware of doing just that. The hypocrisy is adorable!:innocent:

[Morroian]

IanPolaris wrote...

Morroian wrote...
In actual fact in terms of wholesale sales its actually well over 2m, AFAIK when I last looked EA doesn't have a return policy so the sales to EA are those wholesale sales. The effect of retail sales will be no DA3 more than DA2.

Plus digital sales are still not tracked. 

That is the Sold-IN number which is what companies use to pad poor sales figures.  The real sales figure that matters is Sold-IN and VChartz has the best estimate for that (while they tracked it) at somthing south of 1.4 million.

You seem to be contradicting yourself there.

[Persephone]

IanPolaris wrote...

Morroian wrote...
In actual fact in terms of wholesale sales its actually well over 2m, AFAIK when I last looked EA doesn't have a return policy so the sales to EA are those wholesale sales. The effect of retail sales will be no DA3 more than DA2.

Plus digital sales are still not tracked. 

That is the Sold-IN number which is what companies use to pad poor sales figures.  The real sales figure that matters is Sold-IN and VChartz has the best estimate for that (while they tracked it) at somthing south of 1.4 million.

-Polaris

VgChartz is known for its inaccuracies and mocked for it all over the Internet. So I'll beg your pardon for not believing a word they say. Never mind that they do not track digital copies and base their numbers on hearsay and "Sale Charts". (As someone who actually works in Sales and Marketing, all I can do is either scoff or be amused by faith in such an unreliable source. I'll be amused for now.)

[hoorayforicecream]

Persephone wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Morroian wrote...
In actual fact in terms of wholesale sales its actually well over 2m, AFAIK when I last looked EA doesn't have a return policy so the sales to EA are those wholesale sales. The effect of retail sales will be no DA3 more than DA2.

Plus digital sales are still not tracked. 

That is the Sold-IN number which is what companies use to pad poor sales figures.  The real sales figure that matters is Sold-IN and VChartz has the best estimate for that (while they tracked it) at somthing south of 1.4 million.

-Polaris

VgChartz is known for its inaccuracies and mocked for it all over the Internet. So I'll beg your pardon for not believing a word they say. Never mind that they do not track digital copies and base their numbers on hearsay and "Sale Charts". (As someone who actually works in Sales and Marketing, all I can do is either scoff or be amused by faith in such an unreliable source. I'll be amused for now.)

What I find most amusing is that if the game was as massive a failure as he claims, then EA's behavior (continuing to fund and make more DA games) would make no sense. Telling their investors that they are moving forward with the DA franchise, green lighting DA3, none of this would make any sense. What does EA have to gain from lying to the investors about how well their products are doing? Why would they lie only about Dragon Age?

They've never been afraid to say that their products didn't perform as well as they hoped (e.g. Medal of Honor, Mirror's Edge), and if things are not going well, then they usually do their annual round of layoffs in order to cut costs and restore investor confidence. 

But then again, I'm not privy to their financials or the actual sales figures. Perhaps there really is some sort of major conspiracy here to cover up how badly DA2 really failed, and only one man managed to spot it. Perhaps that brave man is honor-bound to post to the official BSN forums to educate everyone and spread the word, because that's clearly the right thing to do. 

/tinfoilhat 

[IanPolaris]

Morroian wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Morroian wrote...
In actual fact in terms of wholesale sales its actually well over 2m, AFAIK when I last looked EA doesn't have a return policy so the sales to EA are those wholesale sales. The effect of retail sales will be no DA3 more than DA2.

Plus digital sales are still not tracked. 

That is the Sold-IN number which is what companies use to pad poor sales figures.  The real sales figure that matters is Sold-IN and VChartz has the best estimate for that (while they tracked it) at somthing south of 1.4 million.

I meant SOLD_THROUGH and you know it.  It's Sold-Through that matters.  As for V-Chartz, funny that Bioware hasn't denounced those figures.  They may not be the most accurate, but they are the best we have.  If they were grossly low, I am sure Bioware wouldn't hesitate to correct any 'misinterpreations' shall we say....

-Polaris

You seem to be contradicting yourself there.

[IanPolaris]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

What I find most amusing is that if the game was as massive a failure as he claims, then EA's behavior (continuing to fund and make more DA games) would make no sense. Telling their investors that they are moving forward with the DA franchise, green lighting DA3, none of this would make any sense. What does EA have to gain from lying to the investors about how well their products are doing? Why would they lie only about Dragon Age?

Facts not in evidence.  All we know is they were willing to fund this DLC and see where it went from there.  We have nothing official that says that DA3 at this point will be produced at all.  Even if it is, that does not mean that DA2 wasn't anything other than a failure.  It might merely mean that bioware thinks that the franchise as a whole still has life.  Again, though there is simply no evidence for this.

They've never been afraid to say that their products didn't perform as well as they hoped (e.g. Medal of Honor, Mirror's Edge), and if things are not going well, then they usually do their annual round of layoffs in order to cut costs and restore investor confidence. 

But then again, I'm not privy to their financials or the actual sales figures. Perhaps there really is some sort of major conspiracy here to cover up how badly DA2 really failed, and only one man managed to spot it. Perhaps that brave man is honor-bound to post to the official BSN forums to educate everyone and spread the word, because that's clearly the right thing to do. 

/tinfoilhat 

Actually I think it's Bioware that's afraid to face the music on DA and not EA.

-POlaris

[erynnar]

Morroian wrote...

Raanz wrote...

I'm sorry Polaris, but your statement is wrong.  Have you worked in the game industry?  Do you know how targets are set in regards to brick and mortar sales, digital distribution, initial resale orders, merchandising, licensing?  You are playing with symantics.  Yes, if you "fail" to meet a target number, you, by definition, fail.  BUT, targets are set all of the time, we have no idea what Bioware's targets were in relation to the product being a financial success or failure.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that DA2 didn't cost over $60 million dollars to make.  You had the figures, or some figures, they sold, what.....1.5 million copies?  If my company spent $30 million on a game, and within the span of 6 months, it returned over $90M in revenue...I'm a happy camper.   I might have nightmares about the bad reviews, but I would jot it down and save it for the next creative development meeting.

In actual fact in terms of wholesale sales its actually well over 2m, AFAIK when I last looked EA doesn't have a return policy so the sales to EA are those wholesale sales. The effect of retail sales will be no DA3 more than DA2.

Plus digital sales are still not tracked. 

*Sigh* this again. Sold in numbers. Those are the sold in, not sales to consumers numbers. Please, don't make stuff up yourself.

[John Epler]

And we've completely abandoned discussion about Legacy. Seeing as how there are currently two active threads on the front page of this forum that -are- discussing Legacy, I'm going to lock this one. If you'd like to start a thread discussing sales figures for DA2, feel free, but this one's getting closed.