70 réponses à ce sujet

[Rockworm503]

I'm not talking about that though. We're talking Mario and the whole shebang... the thing most hardcore gamers scoff at. They all secretly own one but love bashing it anyway right.
Might hate the term "casual gamer" but what else would you call someone who wont play anything harder. My sister is a casual gamer... That is not an insult she wont play anything outside of facebook games. thats just the truth.

[bmwcrazy]

Of course.

If there's a demand, someone will make it.

[jackofalltrades456]

DeepChild wrote...

I checked http://www.vgchartz.com, and I was pretty surprised to see that you are right. NSMBW sold 25 million copies globally. Bioware games for this generation performed as follows:

Mass Effect - 3.12 million.

Mass Effect 2 - 4.47 (3.96 is listed, but they have zero sales for North America for the PC version which is obviously wrong, so I used the ME3 number of 0.51 million here)

Mass Effect 3 - 3.59 (odd that the numbers for ME3 are lower than ME2. I'm not sure how up to date the numbers are, and ME3 has only been out since March)

Dragon Age Origins - 4.15 million

Dragon Age II - 1.94 million

SWTOR - 2.34 million

So Bioware's current generation catalog comes in at around 20 million units sold (so far). The OP has a valid point.

Bioware pours a lot of effort and talent into their games, and any of the Mass Effect series is a HUGE value at $60, especially in comparison to something as relatively simple as a 2D Mario game (however fun it may be).

EDIT:  Just to be specific, the OP is correct in quoting the sales figures for NSMB Wii alone at 25.5 million.
Incidentally, the DS version sold 28.31 million.

I think DA2, SWTOR, and ME3 really only sold well by being the sequels to popular titles and from massive the hype around them.  The Wow forums were filled with," Goodbye forever, WOW! I'm going to SWTOR" during it's release. 

That's why I don't believe Dragon age 3 will sell as good as the last two games. It's going to be the sequel to a disappointment rather than a hit.

 

[TheBlackBaron]

At some point I think publishers will realize that the market - especially with the economy the way it is - can only support a very limited number of CoD-style mega sellers with figures in the tens of millions (compare to a hit single in the music industry - what they call a "radio friendly unit shifter"). That's your Call of Duty's, Halo's, Gears of War's, etc. To expect to get that with every game published is folly, and the sort of thing that can only drive your stock price and your investor dividends down.

A company might need one such franchise as a flagship, as something to point to and to be a guaranteed source of income. But a big publisher like EA or Activision can't subsist on those alone. So if they can't survive on those alone, they'll turn to other sources that may not be as singularly profitable but still help keep them afloat. That's why you're really starting to see the big publishers take long looks at indie studios. They're not stupid, they see the relative success those games have with limited budgets.

Likewise I think they'll see the folly of trying to reach out to a "casual" audience with something like Dragon Age or ME2. No RPG is ever going to get Black Ops sales numbers. I mean, I think it broke records just with it's fricking pre-orders. If you can get a franchise going that consistently brings in 2 million or so in sales every couple of years (see: DA:O, Mass Effect), that's something an investor likes to see.

[slimgrin]

TheBlackBaron wrote...

At some point I think publishers will realize that the market - especially with the economy the way it is - can only support a very limited number of CoD-style mega sellers with figures in the tens of millions (compare to a hit single in the music industry - what they call a "radio friendly unit shifter"). That's your Call of Duty's, Halo's, Gears of War's, etc. To expect to get that with every game published is folly, and the sort of thing that can only drive your stock price and your investor dividends down.

A company might need one such franchise as a flagship, as something to point to and to be a guaranteed source of income. But a big publisher like EA or Activision can't subsist on those alone. So if they can't survive on those alone, they'll turn to other sources that may not be as singularly profitable but still help keep them afloat. That's why you're really starting to see the big publishers take long looks at indie studios. 

One can only hope indie studios have the moral fortitude to resit the creeping fingers of EA.

Modifié par slimgrin, 16 juin 2012 - 01:19 .

[SOLID_EVEREST]

slimgrin wrote...

TheBlackBaron wrote...

At some point I think publishers will realize that the market - especially with the economy the way it is - can only support a very limited number of CoD-style mega sellers with figures in the tens of millions (compare to a hit single in the music industry - what they call a "radio friendly unit shifter"). That's your Call of Duty's, Halo's, Gears of War's, etc. To expect to get that with every game published is folly, and the sort of thing that can only drive your stock price and your investor dividends down.

A company might need one such franchise as a flagship, as something to point to and to be a guaranteed source of income. But a big publisher like EA or Activision can't subsist on those alone. So if they can't survive on those alone, they'll turn to other sources that may not be as singularly profitable but still help keep them afloat. That's why you're really starting to see the big publishers take long looks at indie studios. 

One can only hope indie studios have the moral fortitude to resits the creeping fingers of EA.

With how fast Brian Fargo accepted EA's deal on Origin support, I doubt that EA will be kept at bay for long. Fargo was touting about how disconnected publishers are from video game players in his Wasteland project, and I can't believe how fast he accepted the 2 month deal from EA.

[TheBlackBaron]

SOLID_EVEREST wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

TheBlackBaron wrote...

At some point I think publishers will realize that the market - especially with the economy the way it is - can only support a very limited number of CoD-style mega sellers with figures in the tens of millions (compare to a hit single in the music industry - what they call a "radio friendly unit shifter"). That's your Call of Duty's, Halo's, Gears of War's, etc. To expect to get that with every game published is folly, and the sort of thing that can only drive your stock price and your investor dividends down.

A company might need one such franchise as a flagship, as something to point to and to be a guaranteed source of income. But a big publisher like EA or Activision can't subsist on those alone. So if they can't survive on those alone, they'll turn to other sources that may not be as singularly profitable but still help keep them afloat. That's why you're really starting to see the big publishers take long looks at indie studios. 

One can only hope indie studios have the moral fortitude to resits the creeping fingers of EA.

With how fast Brian Fargo accepted EA's deal on Origin support, I doubt that EA will be kept at bay for long. Fargo was touting about how disconnected publishers are from video game players in his Wasteland project, and I can't believe how fast he accepted the 2 month deal from EA.

Oh for ****'s sake, is it really that big a deal that Wasteland 2 is going to be available on Origin, among a -horde- of other options? They're not even publishing it, they're just one avenue of distribution. 

Modifié par TheBlackBaron, 16 juin 2012 - 01:34 .

[Fidget6]

Rockworm503 wrote...

Fidget6 wrote...

M25105 wrote...

Casual audience is a term invented by publishers to explain why their so called awesome games failed to meet up to expectations. 

Agreed, so tired of the "casual gamer" BS.

Are you seriously going to tell me that hardcore gamers are playing the Wii?

What constitutes a "hardcore gamer" as opposed to a "casual gamer"? People who rack up thousands of hours on so-called "casual" games to get the top score seem pretty "hardcore" to me. I'm picky about my video games, and don't play a lot of the mainstream "hardcore" games, but I still play a ****ton of video games, so I don't consider myself a "casual" gamer either. My point is the terms are just nonsense. People like different types of games. That doesn't make them any more or less hardcore then anyone else. 

[wsandista]

No, BW won't make anything else like NWN or DAO, or(insert great RPG).

The most we can hope for is Obsidian or kickstarter for games like that.

[Rockworm503]

Fidget6 wrote...

Rockworm503 wrote...

Fidget6 wrote...

M25105 wrote...

Casual audience is a term invented by publishers to explain why their so called awesome games failed to meet up to expectations. 

Agreed, so tired of the "casual gamer" BS.

Are you seriously going to tell me that hardcore gamers are playing the Wii?

What constitutes a "hardcore gamer" as opposed to a "casual gamer"? People who rack up thousands of hours on so-called "casual" games to get the top score seem pretty "hardcore" to me. I'm picky about my video games, and don't play a lot of the mainstream "hardcore" games, but I still play a ****ton of video games, so I don't consider myself a "casual" gamer either. My point is the terms are just nonsense. People like different types of games. That doesn't make them any more or less hardcore then anyone else. 

You just proved your point wrong by making it.
All gamers are exactly the same because they all play differently?
The label isn't there to offend its there to show there are different types of gamers with different tastes and thats exactly what works for Nintendo.  Other than completionists who are insane with getting all trophys / acheivements can you honestly tell me a hardcore gamer is playing Cooking Mama or Kinect Sports?  These games are designed with casual gamers in mind.  People who probably play an hour a week or so.  My sister I mentioned before isn't interested in these high quality titles and she'll CASUALLY (hence the name) boot up her laptop and play some facebook game.

SEE HOW EASY THAT IS?
Hardcore gamers play games with a passion.
Casual gamers see it as a distraction.
Thats it.
Thats all it means!

Modifié par Rockworm503, 16 juin 2012 - 02:09 .

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

SOLID_EVEREST wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

TheBlackBaron wrote...

At some point I think publishers will realize that the market - especially with the economy the way it is - can only support a very limited number of CoD-style mega sellers with figures in the tens of millions (compare to a hit single in the music industry - what they call a "radio friendly unit shifter"). That's your Call of Duty's, Halo's, Gears of War's, etc. To expect to get that with every game published is folly, and the sort of thing that can only drive your stock price and your investor dividends down.

A company might need one such franchise as a flagship, as something to point to and to be a guaranteed source of income. But a big publisher like EA or Activision can't subsist on those alone. So if they can't survive on those alone, they'll turn to other sources that may not be as singularly profitable but still help keep them afloat. That's why you're really starting to see the big publishers take long looks at indie studios. 

One can only hope indie studios have the moral fortitude to resits the creeping fingers of EA.

With how fast Brian Fargo accepted EA's deal on Origin support, I doubt that EA will be kept at bay for long. Fargo was touting about how disconnected publishers are from video game players in his Wasteland project, and I can't believe how fast he accepted the 2 month deal from EA.

EA owns the Wasteland IP. Faran Brygo had to deal with them to get the game made.

As for the topic, yes. I too am worried that no company will have the courage to create something as risky as a cinematic third person linear corridor cover shooter.

Modifié par CrustyBot, 16 juin 2012 - 03:44 .

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Unlikely.

[Veex]

Are there any games out there similar to the Mario franchise that are pulling in numbers like that, or is it the exception in a sea of games selling 1-5 million per?

[Ridwan]

Veex wrote...

Are there any games out there similar to the Mario franchise that are pulling in numbers like that, or is it the exception in a sea of games selling 1-5 million per?

Call of Duty : Modern Warfare 2, Diablo 3, World of Warcraft, GTA: San Andreas, the Sims, and quite a few others.

[Veex]

M25105 wrote...

Call of Duty : Modern Warfare 2, Diablo 3, World of Warcraft, GTA: San Andreas, the Sims, and quite a few others.

None of those sell Mario numbers that I'm aware of, except maybe GTA. The difference between two or three million and twenty five million is a lot more jarring than the difference between ten million. I realize VGchartz isn't accurate, but as an estimation http://www.vgchartz.com/gamedb/, that pretty much looks like Nintendo is always going to hit the largest market. They're like the most extreme outlier I can think of.

Activision/Blizzard, love them or hate them, has a rabid following that no other game company can claim. I understand the premise of the OP's post. Why would developers continue to make expensive titles that sell less than the Marios or CoDs? I think the answer is because they're still searching for something like a CoD or Warcraft or Mario, and establishing their own sizable fanbase. You can't just try and clone Warcraft or Mario and expect it to garner the same audience (as we've seen).

There obviously is a market for games like Dragon Age or Mass Effect, and I think developers will continue to make titles in a similar vein until they stop seeing a return on investment. BioWare might not be the company to do this, they may just completely abandon what made us like them, but companies like CDPR seem to be making high production titles still without trying to chase the "wider audience".

[Ridwan]

Darth_Trethon wrote...

M25105 wrote...


Units in terms of TEN THOUSAND.

><

Yeah my FAIL on that point....still I don't see BioWare developing for the Wii and I doubt they ever will be but you still lack a point. Mario games were spammed by Nintendo because on a platform without many options a recognizable title does wonders. What they really succeeded at were convincing kids the Wii was great and the parents that it would provide them much needed exarcise and others still with an excuse to claim they actually did any exercise. Then the game was bundled with the platform for about a decade or so iirc which inflates sale numbers with actual platform sales.

This isn't about Bioware making games for the Wii, it's about whether or not it's worth making big budget games that never seems to break the 5 million mark.

And the Wii main selling feature was Wii Sports, not Mario. Mario games came quite a bit later for the Wii. Third, people that bought the Wii weren't kids, nor did the adults buy it for the kids. The Wii was designed to look good, be quiet and fit in the living, unlike the xbox 360s and ps3s that got shoved in the kids room. It's popular in many work places too and even retirement homes, stop using that excuse it's for kids, when it's clear that it was marketed to a forgotten demographic.

And about sales, no. The Wii was EXTREMELY successful, and put many dumb gaming "journalists" and "analysts" to shame as they predicted it would fail, and lauded the PS3. However in the first two years, guess what. The PS3 and Xbox360 didn't make a profit! 0, none. They lost money. My chair that I sat made more money, by not making money, but it didn't lose money either, so ergo my chair is a far better businessman than Sony or Microsoft. Now I'd like to STOP TALKING about consoles, since those are HARDWARES. The topic is about SOFTWARE and whether in the future or not, companies will think it's worth developing big budget games, considering how much more profitable games like Diablo 3.

Rockworm503 wrote...

 So long as there are people who
loves games there will people making them.  Why Mario has to be brought
in is beyond me.  Sure it sold more but this isn't the same market.  I
love mario as much as the next guy but sometimes I want something
more.

Mario is mentioned cause it is by definition a simple game, yet very fun to play and EXTREMELY profittable. Crictics and those gamers that falsly label themselves as hardcore/mature gamers, were raving about how great Super Mario Galaxy 1 and 2 was, yet those expensive 3D Mario games combined still sold less than New Super Mario Bros. Wii.

After the Success of New Super Mario Bros. for the DS, Iwata had to practically order Miyamoto to make one for the Wii, because Miyamoto still believes that Mario should embrace 3D. But sales show otherwise. Sales > Artistic integrity. If you wanna be an artist and design games the way you think they should be, start your own company. Otherwise you listen to your boss.

So Nintendo woke up, if you can say it like that and saw that there is more profit to be had, by making a well polished 2D sidescrolling game, than games like Galaxy or Metroid: Other M.

If you want to compare RPG, well Skyrim shown to be very successful (compared to big budget games) and its sales numbers is far better than ME3. And I'm sure the costs to develop Skyrim was still lower than ME3, since they didn't have to pay an absurd amount of money to voice actors. (Remember the EA-Louse, who revealed how much money they spent on SWTOR (300 million dollar) and the thing they were most proud of was the sound?) They focused on making a beautiful scenery instead and gave you the freedom to ride anywhere.

So stop thinking like a gamer for a second, and think like you own a company. You look at the budget and how much money you spent devoloping a game, like Heavy Rain, then you see something that these socalled smart crictics that you were listening called a simple childish games, like Donkey Kong Country Returns and you have to wonder, why is my artful, expensive, story heavy game, not selling as much as a simple platformer game? How much did we end up making, is it even worth continuing to do such games?

The answer is yes, if you ask. But you need to bite in the sour apple and lower the budget in terms of graphics and highpaid stars for voice actors, keep it simple and you have a much higher profit margin, than if you make the game expensive. Even if the sales numbers are the same, you'll still see a higher profit.

TheBlackBaron wrote...

At some point I think publishers
will realize that the market - especially with the economy the way it is
- can only support a very limited number of CoD-style mega sellers with
figures in the tens of millions (compare to a hit single in the music
industry - what they call a "radio friendly unit shifter"). That's your
Call of Duty's, Halo's, Gears of War's, etc. To expect to get that with
every game published is folly, and the sort of thing that can only drive
your stock price and your investor dividends down.

A company
might need one such franchise as a flagship, as something to point to
and to be a guaranteed source of income. But a big publisher like EA or
Activision can't subsist on those alone. So if they can't survive on
those alone, they'll turn to other sources that may not be as singularly
profitable but still help keep them afloat. That's why you're really
starting to see the big publishers take long looks at indie studios.
They're not stupid, they see the relative success those games have with
limited budgets.

Likewise I think they'll see the folly of
trying to reach out to a "casual" audience with something like Dragon
Age or ME2. No RPG is ever going to get Black Ops sales numbers. I
mean, I think it broke records just with it's fricking pre-orders. If
you can get a franchise going that consistently brings in 2 million or
so in sales every couple of years (see: DA:O, Mass Effect), that's
something an investor likes to see.

Skyrim has sold over 12 million copies now.

Veex wrote...

M25105 wrote...

Call of Duty : Modern Warfare 2, Diablo 3, World of Warcraft, GTA: San Andreas, the Sims, and quite a few others.

None
of those sell Mario numbers that I'm aware of, except maybe GTA. The
difference between two or three million and twenty five million is a lot
more jarring than the difference between ten million. I realize
VGchartz isn't accurate, but as an estimation http://www.vgchartz.com/gamedb/, that
pretty much looks like Nintendo is always going to hit the largest
market. They're like the most extreme outlier I can think of.

Activision/Blizzard,
love them or hate them, has a rabid following that no other game
company can claim. I understand the premise of the OP's post. Why would
developers continue to make expensive titles that sell less than the
Marios or CoDs? I think the answer is because they're still searching
for something like a CoD or Warcraft or Mario, and establishing their
own sizable fanbase. You can't just try and clone Warcraft or Mario and
expect it to garner the same audience (as we've seen).

There
obviously is a market for games like Dragon Age or Mass Effect, and I
think developers will continue to make titles in a similar vein until
they stop seeing a return on investment. BioWare might not be the
company to do this, they may just completely abandon what made us like
them, but companies like CDPR seem to be making high production titles
still without trying to chase the "wider audience".

The numbers in those link, only counts games on each single platform. Example Modern Warfare 2 sold much more than 12 million copies, if you combine the sales numbers for Xbox360 with PS3 and PC.

[Ridwan]

Bumping this, since Offtopic got invaded by spammers.

[android654]

After finishing ME3 I think the question should be, "Did Bioware ever make a game like we thought Dragon Age and Mass Effect were going to be?"

[Ridwan]

android654 wrote...

After finishing ME3 I think the question should be, "Did Bioware ever make a game like we thought Dragon Age and Mass Effect were going to be?"

Ehmmm I think they did.

[Ridwan]

ttt

[Ridwan]

Last bump from me.