73 réponses à ce sujet

[EricHVela]

Rather than the porn analogy, let's just look at it logically.

To appeal to a wider audience than the former fans, the game must now appeal to people who were not fans.

Therein lies the problem. People who aren't fans aren't necessarily going to become fans. People who are fans are guaranteed to lose some of what made them fans in the first place in this unguaranteed bid for fresh blood. (In the past, EA seemed to react as if it's the studios' fault when it fails to pay off.)

Also while it is reasonable to think that EA wants moar on-lion stufs, we cannot ignore that Microsoft pushes their Live! subscriptions as much as they can (including PC games from Origin and Steam). I don't know what Sony's stance is for their online gimmicks. The game stops trying to appeal to single players so much (a core design consideration) and tries to appeal to new players that like multiplayer games (a completely different design) hoping to keep some of the previous fans (while knowing they won't be able to keep them all -- ruthless calculus: lose players here in hope of getting more players there than lost).

I don't know what numbers are to show if these changes have been worth the loss of former fans through more sales elsewhere. Yet, look at that list again. The ones at the top half are all but one single-player oriented. There are more multiplayer games in the lower half. That should tell developers on projects for PC how the market is flowing there.

[Renmiri1]

My marketing professor used to explain it this way: You have only a certain amount of gas so if you try to cook 4 different dishes you get all 4 under cooked meals and no one likes it. Same goes for a product. When you try to cater to too many fan bases you end up with a weak tasteless raw product that is hated by all.

Best to put all your resources to please one, or a maximum of two fan segments, and make them happy campers. Your reputation will grow and later you can launch a different line to cater to the fans you were not "cooking for".

In Bioware's case, I think they are being pretty dense. Multiplayer is NOT story based so their core competency is useless. Multiplayer is also very dependent on game mechanics and class balance which I think it is not that good on Mass Effect and extremely weak on Dragon Age. They might want those shiny microtransaction dollars but they are not well positioned to get it. They should strengthen their base and promote a lot more fan loyalty before they try to get a successful multiplayer universe going. They are doing just the opposite: dissing their old fans and going after stuff they are not good at...

Modifié par Renmiri1, 05 août 2012 - 06:24 .

[hussey 92]

carine wrote...
We don't know if there even really will be a Dragon Age 3.

yes we do.

[MrCrabby]

ReggarBlane wrote...

Rather than the porn analogy, let's just look at it logically.

To appeal to a wider audience than the former fans, the game must now appeal to people who were not fans.

Therein lies the problem. People who aren't fans aren't necessarily going to become fans. People who are fans are guaranteed to lose some of what made them fans in the first place in this unguaranteed bid for fresh blood. (In the past, EA seemed to react as if it's the studios' fault when it fails to pay off.)

Also while it is reasonable to think that EA wants moar on-lion stufs, we cannot ignore that Microsoft pushes their Live! subscriptions as much as they can (including PC games from Origin and Steam). I don't know what Sony's stance is for their online gimmicks. The game stops trying to appeal to single players so much (a core design consideration) and tries to appeal to new players that like multiplayer games (a completely different design) hoping to keep some of the previous fans (while knowing they won't be able to keep them all -- ruthless calculus: lose players here in hope of getting more players there than lost).

I don't know what numbers are to show if these changes have been worth the loss of former fans through more sales elsewhere. Yet, look at that list again. The ones at the top half are all but one single-player oriented. There are more multiplayer games in the lower half. That should tell developers on projects for PC how the market is flowing there.

I am totally cognisant of the reasoning behind the design changes. They just happen to be stupid reasons.

[eroeru]

Of course.

[zyntifox]

ReggarBlane wrote...

Rather than the porn analogy, let's just look at it logically.

To appeal to a wider audience than the former fans, the game must now appeal to people who were not fans.

Therein lies the problem. People who aren't fans aren't necessarily going to become fans. People who are fans are guaranteed to lose some of what made them fans in the first place in this unguaranteed bid for fresh blood. (In the past, EA seemed to react as if it's the studios' fault when it fails to pay off.)

Also while it is reasonable to think that EA wants moar on-lion stufs, we cannot ignore that Microsoft pushes their Live! subscriptions as much as they can (including PC games from Origin and Steam). I don't know what Sony's stance is for their online gimmicks. The game stops trying to appeal to single players so much (a core design consideration) and tries to appeal to new players that like multiplayer games (a completely different design) hoping to keep some of the previous fans (while knowing they won't be able to keep them all -- ruthless calculus: lose players here in hope of getting more players there than lost).

I don't know what numbers are to show if these changes have been worth the loss of former fans through more sales elsewhere. Yet, look at that list again. The ones at the top half are all but one single-player oriented. There are more That should tell developers on projects for PC how the market is flowing there.

And this is something i do not understand; why take such a risk and doing a 180? The sales of DA:O was very good. And the upside in sales by changing the direction is very limited because from what i've gathered, and i may be totally off here, few RPGs have sold more than DA:O. Not counting Mass effect series since it's a interactive action/adventure game and those guys at Bethesda because they are cleary cheating.

[wsandista]

PurebredCorn wrote...

Cstaf wrote...

PurebredCorn wrote...

Skewed poll is skewed.

You shouldn't dismiss a poll just because you happen to not like the result.

And you shouldn't embrace a skewed poll simply because it supports your own bias.

This poll had an extremely large sample size so it is worth mentioning. It isn't like the data is that different from other polls on the subject, which all seem to indicate that tth majority(or plurality) gamers think that DA is not headed in the right direction. 

[zyntifox]

PurebredCorn wrote...

Cstaf wrote...

PurebredCorn wrote...

Skewed poll is skewed.

You shouldn't dismiss a poll just because you happen to not like the result.

And you shouldn't embrace a skewed poll simply because it supports your own bias.

I am not embracing it; i simply told you that even though the sample might be biased, which i would argue is fairly limited given that there are multiple games you vote on, the samples convergence-rate is fairly fast with binary data. And with data sample that large, and the estimate proportion not close to 0.5, you can make inference from the data. Will the estimate of the proportion be as trustworthy as a estimate from a unbiased sample? No, it will not. But the size of the confidence interval of the estimated proportion will be fairly small for just the reason i explained.

Modifié par Cstaf, 06 août 2012 - 04:28 .

[EricHVela]

I, again, don't have any numbers, but my suspicions (and that's all that they are) are that the fans of the story games give a game series a longevity through loyalty where multiplayer games have to fight tooth-and-nail in order to keep players in future installments. If true (big "if"), it could explain how so many story-focused RPGs in the past experienced well-received sequels (until someone -- like EA -- royally changed things, killing the franchise), but it's just my suspicion.

[Wozearly]

Cstaf wrote...

ReggarBlane wrote...

Therein lies the problem. People who aren't fans aren't necessarily going to become fans. People who are fans are guaranteed to lose some of what made them fans in the first place in this unguaranteed bid for fresh blood. (In the past, EA seemed to react as if it's the studios' fault when it fails to pay off.)

I don't know what numbers are to show if these changes have been worth the loss of former fans through more sales elsewhere. Yet, look at that list again. The ones at the top half are all but one single-player oriented. There are more That should tell developers on projects for PC how the market is flowing there.

And this is something i do not understand; why take such a risk and doing a 180? The sales of DA:O was very good. And the upside in sales by changing the direction is very limited because from what i've gathered, and i may be totally off here, few RPGs have sold more than DA:O. Not counting Mass effect series since it's a interactive action/adventure game and those guys at Bethesda because they are cleary cheating.

You are slightly off, but the spirit is still correct. If you take XBox sales as a yardstick, DA:O at 2.3m sold just slightly under the ME series (2.4m - 2.9m). Marvel: Ultimate Alliance (2.5m) and Final Fantasy XIII (1.9m) are in the same neck of the woods. The Fallout series shifted significantly larger numbers (3.0m - 3.8m), as did Oblivion (3.8m), the Fable series (4.1m-4.8m) and leering at them all from on high is Skyrim, with (6.1m).*

Below Final Fantasy XIII is a whopping great 50% drop in the sales total where at 0.9m DA2 is just ahead of a signifcant pack of also-ran RPGs.

I don't think Bioware saw DA2 as a 180 - I think they were honestly unprepared for the explosive fan backlash (in the interests of balance, not every fan disliked DA2), and where DA:O's sales were lifted up by word of mouth (it was a relatively slow starter for sales, but gave a consistently steady performance), DA2 failed to achieve the same effect, with sales plummeting after a rapid initial spike (likely linked to the sudden prevalence of negative fan reviews in the face of, up to that point, primarily positive professional reviews).

But clearly there's a lot to learn from Bethesda...and I think its safe to say they've utterly debunked this bizarre concept that single player games are dying.


*all numbers sourced from VGCharts.com. Unlikely to be perfectly accurate, but the inaccuracy should be consistent across titles, so the difference in scale between sales figures is likely to be pretty reliable, even if the actual totals are open to dispute

Modifié par Wozearly, 09 août 2012 - 07:51 .

[Wozearly]

PurebredCorn wrote...

And you shouldn't embrace a skewed poll simply because it supports your own bias.

The poll may not perfectly reflect the opinion of the majority of game players (or game buyers) who may not necessarily have any interest in voting in a poll of that nature, and people who never even touched the game may have voted based on their perception. 

But given that DA got votes from nearly 60% of the sample willing to express a view, you can be pretty certain that of the sample group, that is without a doubt reflective of the general balance of opinion with a very small margin of error.

That's a lot more concrete than attempting to second guess what Joe Average who never votes in online polls thought, as we have no obvious method of guaging his opinion short of attributing our own views onto him (because, obviously, our views are correct - otherwise we wouldn't have them - and therefore the majority of people must agree).

So you can read it as a clear example of negative fan feedback, and a not entirely controversial suggestion that DA2 detractors outnumber the DA2 enthusiasts.

Or, if you're wedded to the "its suffering from two or three levels of bias, its just not fair and representative" view, then its nonetheless a massive red flag indicating that Bioware has a reputation problem with the DA series amongst a large number of people willing to express their opinions to a major industry news outlet (and, presumably, to each other).

Given the rise and influence of peer-rating systems, if that's what Bioware are meant to be taking from it then David Silverman might be in need of an urgent underwear change.

[Heather Cline]

Yes they both deserve to be on the getting worse list. Because of so many things and frankly even though I don't play on a PC I still believe both series are getting worse not better.

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

I almost expect the game manuel for a physical copy of DA 3 to be a pop-up book with bite proof pages.

[jillabender]

Plaintiff wrote…

I don't really give even half of a **** what 'PC gamers' think

Even though I'm a PC gamer (well, a Mac gamer, to be more precise), I agree that there's absolutely no reason why you should concern yourself with what the majority of gamers prefer – whether they're PC gamers or otherwise.

I preferred DA:O to DA2, but I don't think there's any reason that anyone should have to apologize for preferring DA2 – even assuming it's true that they're in the minority.

Modifié par jillabender, 16 août 2012 - 12:20 .

[RaggieRags]

I don't see a reason to think the poll is invalid. The poll was conducted by a gaming magazine, not by a Bioware fan group, so in what way is this group of people not representative of Bioware's general audience? Granted it's a magazine for PC games, but that does not mean all of the respondents are PC only gamers. There's also no reason to believe the console gamers would have radically different opinions. And they would have to be very radically different to make these results not worrying.

[coles4971]

Plaintiff wrote...

I don't really give even half of a **** what 'PC gamers' think, because every single one I've met was an elitist douchebag with an insulting, bigoted attitude towards console users, and an obsessive hatred of change that borders on the autistic.

I think DA2 is a vast improvement over Origins in several different ways. I haven't played Mass Effect.

lololol overreaction much :lol:

[jillabender]

RaggieRags…

I don't see a reason to think the poll is invalid. The poll was conducted by a gaming magazine, not by a Bioware fan group, so in what way is this group of people not representative of Bioware's general audience? Granted it's a magazine for PC games, but that does not mean all of the respondents are PC only gamers. There's also no reason to believe the console gamers would have radically different opinions. And they would have to be very radically different to make these results not worrying.

Not sure whether your comment was directed at me, but I was trying to convey that even assuming that the poll shows those who preferred DA2 over DA:O to be in the minority (which seems to be what many posters extrapolated from it, rightly or wrongly), the results don't automatically invalidate the experiences of those who preferred DA2.

I don't think any statistic can demonstrate once and for all which game was superior, because everyone finds different kinds of experiences rewarding.

[Fast Jimmy]

coles4971 wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

I don't really give even half of a **** what 'PC gamers' think, because every single one I've met was an elitist douchebag with an insulting, bigoted attitude towards console users, and an obsessive hatred of change that borders on the autistic.

I think DA2 is a vast improvement over Origins in several different ways. I haven't played Mass Effect.

lololol overreaction much :lol:

That's Plantiff, honestly. S/he has very strong feelings about what they believe and is not in the least bit shy about expressing them. Because s/he honestly does not give a flying whoop what anyone else thinks about what s/he thinks. 



All that aside... for those who say the poll is skewed because its only taking a sample of people who care a great deal about video games... aren't those people who's opinion matters the most? People who care a great deal about video games will, shockingly enough... talk to many other people about video games!

And word of mouth is the most powerful form of advertising on the face of the planet. An algorithm was created a few years ago that could accurately predict (within a range) movie ticket sales based solely off the number of Tweets about it the week before it opened with a surprisingly high degree of accuracy. This was independent of marketing campaigns, movie genre or audience. While a slightly off-topic anecdote, it just goes to show that people talking will ultimately be the biggest determiner of how successful your product is.

So, in my opinion, the thoughts of people who are heavily involved in video games, who are apart and active in the gaming community (in one form or another) and who watch video game news and activity the most are the people whose opinions are, ultimately, going to influence the largest number of people who AREN'T heavily involved. 

In my set of friends, I know who to go to in order to get the newest political dirt. I know who to call if I have a sports trivia question. I know who to text if I'm having a computer/technical issue. The people who are the most involved in the video game world are the people whose friends come and ask them about video games (or who give their opinion to friends freely, and start a conversation about it). So while a marketing campaign may get some people to talk about a game, the people who are heavily involved in video games are always going to pop up and give their opinion and influence the conversation way more than an add or a Facebook campaign could.

So if those people, those loudest voices who more people hear, are saying that the quality of your franchises is falling and there are enough of those loud voices saying it, its the truth. It may not be a fact... but it becomes the truth the more people say it and the louder it is said. 

[Renmiri1]

Ryllen Laerth Kriel wrote...

I almost expect the game manuel for a physical copy of DA 3 to be a pop-up book with bite proof pages.

Waterproof so you can play with it and your duckies on the bathtub.. And have a cameo by Dora the Explorer 

[RaggieRags]

jillabender wrote...


Not sure whether your comment was directed at me, but I was trying to convey that even assuming that the poll shows those who preferred DA2 over DA:O to be in the minority (which seems to be what many posters extrapolated from it, rightly or wrongly), the results don't automatically invalidate the experiences of those who preferred DA2.

Obviously. I'm only arguing the poll is valid and representative enough, not that people's personal feelings about the game are not valid.

Fast Jimmy wrote...

All that aside... for those who say
the poll is skewed because its only taking a sample of people who care a
great deal about video games... aren't those people who's opinion
matters the most?

DA is not (yet) a casual game series, nor enough of a household name like Halo or COD to be much acknowledged by sunday gamers. It's played by and large by people who care a great deal about video games.

[Fisto The Sexbot]

Plaintiff wrote...

I think DA2 is a vast improvement over Origins in several different ways.

That is why no one will remember your name.

[Lord Gremlin]

Plaintiff wrote...

I don't really give even half of a **** what 'PC gamers' think, because every single one I've met was an elitist douchebag with an insulting, bigoted attitude towards console users, and an obsessive hatred of change that borders on the autistic.

I think DA2 is a vast improvement over Origins in several different ways. I haven't played Mass Effect.

While this holds true for some - not all - PC gamers - I can't agree... I'm primarily a PS3 gamer myself, although PC is my source of indie stuff.. And I've played both Dragon Age games on PS3. The only actual improvement is that DA2 engine performs better on PS3 than DAO one.

That's it. It's not a PC gamer thing, it's a thing for most console gamers too: DA2 is inferior to DAO. I talked several friends out of buying DA2.

[EricHVela]

A poll, when viewed in context, is still valid in context. To dismiss it altogether is to be willfully ignorant.