289 réponses à ce sujet

[Boycott Bioware]

Bioware need to know what the old fans like about their games in the past and keep it in the new game, do not change it. i never say they cannot applying or experimenting something new, they can, but the originality is kept and that is the identity of Bioware games the old fans love about.

i can say DA:O is the last game that still have that identity, the old RPG elements, i never say DA:O is perfect, for me KotOR is most perfect game, but KotOR success cannot be made as comparison, because KotOR have Star Wars fans, so it is a bit biased

What i mean as "perfect" is it have combination of good mechanic, good character template, good story, good endings, RPG elements, customizations, fun factor, emotional factor, everything that is needed making players still playing it up to today

i understand that Bioware need new fans, from new generations, the generation that play games not on PCs, Bethesda also going into the same trend and believe me the old Bethesda fans are not happy...Skyrim is not build for PC, the control suck and confusing, the story suck, the only thing that is good about Skyrim is button meshing and grinding skills, it is not fun, it get boring after few hours, Skyrim is "MMO" in single player game...it is because Bethesda target the new generation fans who don't care about anything else other than killing anything that moving in the game and become vampire, werewolf, want everything, want to become leader of all guilds, want the most powerful weapons the Daedric weapon, want to solve puzzles in 5 seconds ...the kids...yes Skyrim is hyped, but now people have see the truth...Skyrim is for the kids

Graphic is not everything for a good game, a game may have good graphic that need new hardware to install in on PC, but the game can still suck if it lack everything what make the game is loved...again, look at KotOR, it is an old game, every NPCs are twins, everyone have the same funny fighting style, but that game have a spirit....the spirit of RPG

Everyone play as Revan, it is a default PC, but Revan is not like Hawke...Revan in KotOR is the player him/her self, but Hawke is Hawke (and Shepard is Shepard)...

Modifié par Qistina, 17 avril 2013 - 11:09 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Conduit0 wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Conduit0 wrote...
Except VGChartz can't be trusted, and even if they could, their numbers still don't reflect digital sales, which are far more significant than people give them credit for.

But even if that were true and all three would equal each other, a toolset (with licensing costs) might still not be cost justified. Even if it doubles (e.g.) PC sales. 

I was simply making the point that VGChartz is bad and you should never use them as reference material for a debate.

Yet they are the only tool available, unless developers would begin to be so kind as to start posting that information to the general public. 

If it is good enough for financial analysts and the guys over at Forbes magazine to reference as rough estimates, it is good enough for me. I guess I'm crazy like that. 

[Conduit0]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Conduit0 wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Conduit0 wrote...
Except VGChartz can't be trusted, and even if they could, their numbers still don't reflect digital sales, which are far more significant than people give them credit for.

But even if that were true and all three would equal each other, a toolset (with licensing costs) might still not be cost justified. Even if it doubles (e.g.) PC sales. 

I was simply making the point that VGChartz is bad and you should never use them as reference material for a debate.

Yet they are the only tool available, unless developers would begin to be so kind as to start posting that information to the general public. 

If it is good enough for financial analysts and the guys over at Forbes magazine to reference as rough estimates, it is good enough for me. I guess I'm crazy like that. 

Financial analysts do not use VGChartz, they have access to retail sales information that is only made available to major financial institutions. Ofcourse even then, those financial analysts still end up with egg on their face from time to time when it comes to predicting digital sales. Such as the analyst team that stated digital sales couldn't possibly make up for Mists of Pandaria's paltry sales, however when Blizzard announced their sales figures, digital sales out paced retail almost 4 to 1.

If you need proof of VGChartz horrible inaccuracy, all you really need to do is look up games with confirmed sales numbers, such as the Tomb Raider reboot which Squeenix reported selling 3.4 million copies at the end of March, yet VGChartz shows a miserable 1.97 million. Now I realize as an estimation some discrepancy is unavoidable, but a difference of 1.43 million is massive and renders their data completely useless.

As for Forbes, from what I've seen, most of their gaming articles are done by freelancers, who likely are no more privy to sales figures and real sales analysis than we are.

[Brockololly]

As to the PC versus console sales, while console sales will likely be higher, I have to imagine that EA or any publisher is likely going to make more money per copy sold on a PC digital copy. And digital copies of games are likely the predominant method of distribution for PC games now. Whether that's getting an EA game directly from EA or via some other DD outlet, EA is likely making more money per copy sold via digital download than regular retail.

Its probably not enough to make up for raw sales differences between platforms but I'm going to guess publishers would prefer people buying directly from them via Origin or other DD outlets as opposed to retail.


And regarding a toolset or supporting modding, it certainly has many benefits. I've known people who originally bought the console version of Skyrim but once they started seeing some videos of some of the mods, they ended up double dipping and buying the PC version. And then using mods can keep you active with the game long enough to stay interested in any DLC releases.

Modifié par Brockololly, 17 avril 2013 - 12:31 .

[LinksOcarina]

Brockololly wrote...

As to the PC versus console sales, while console sales will likely be higher, I have to imagine that EA or any publisher is likely going to make more money per copy sold on a PC digital copy. And digital copies of games are likely the predominant method of distribution for PC games now. Whether that's getting an EA game directly from EA or via some other DD outlet, EA is likely making more money per copy sold via digital download than regular retail.

Its probably not enough to make up for raw sales differences between platforms but I'm going to guess publishers would prefer people buying directly from them via Origin or other DD outlets as opposed to retail.

They will make more money on PC because of Origins mostly. If their products were still on steam it would be divided up a bit where Valve gets a piece of the sale (I forget the actual numbes, I think its 10-15% of the products price is the deal there.) 

And it very well might be enough to recoup losses. If EA controls the full price of a $50.00 game, thats $50 in the bank to everyone. If they had it divded out, they would only get on average $14-$20 depending on the deal they get per copy sold. They would prefer it, but can't stop it. EA tried back in 2009 with the free content and got a lot of flak from the retailers for trying to undercut used sales. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 17 avril 2013 - 12:33 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Financial analysts do not use VGChartz, they have access to retail sales information that is only made available to major financial institutions. Ofcourse even then, those financial analysts still end up with egg on their face from time to time when it comes to predicting digital sales. Such as the analyst team that stated digital sales couldn't possibly make up for Mists of Pandaria's paltry sales, however when Blizzard announced their sales figures, digital sales out paced retail almost 4 to 1.

First of all, these tools are NOT available only to major financial institutions. They are simply incredibly expensive, completely impractical for the average use. I should know - I previously had access to a business research database and extrapolation tool software that cost $1,000 a month to use.

But these resources/tools are not word-of-God, either. Retail stores, not to mention digital download service, don't just fling open their doors because you say you are a business analyst. They are tools that pool and process publicly made information, such as what is presented in quarterly earnings and statements from retail companies. These tools are also equipped with impressive mathematical formulas and programs that are extremely complex and often effective... but they are still projections. They are NOT hard numbers. It is data, data which needs to be analyzed with a business eye.

So, in that light, they are tools. Tools just like VGChartz. Is VGChartz infallible? No, of course not. But could it be a useful tool for the commonly accepted domain of knowledge? Yes. Just like Wikipedia is not as comprehensive and accurate as a 500 page history book, but is still referred to often in debates as a generally accepted rule of thumb, the same applies to VGChartz. The pool of data is roughly the same, VGChartz is just the less defined model and projections.

Lastly, you are assuming the company coming out with the Tomb Raider numbers was 100% accurate. It also assumes that VGChartz numbers had been updated in real time, which is rarely be case. For a game that is less than 8 weeks old, VGChartz is a poor tool. It does not receive, not is able to update its information on a rapid enough basis for all titles, especially not with nearly as in urgency as what the developer themselves would track it.

But over the long run, VGChartz reflects fairly accurate numbers, minus the digital downloads portion. Which, as you pointed out in your own rebuttal, is not available to anyone in the public at all. So its hardly a fair critique when no other system, not even ones that costs $10,000 a year, can reflect.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 17 avril 2013 - 12:47 .

[Fast Jimmy]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Brockololly wrote...

As to the PC versus console sales, while console sales will likely be higher, I have to imagine that EA or any publisher is likely going to make more money per copy sold on a PC digital copy. And digital copies of games are likely the predominant method of distribution for PC games now. Whether that's getting an EA game directly from EA or via some other DD outlet, EA is likely making more money per copy sold via digital download than regular retail.

Its probably not enough to make up for raw sales differences between platforms but I'm going to guess publishers would prefer people buying directly from them via Origin or other DD outlets as opposed to retail.

They will make more money on PC because of Origins mostly. If their products were still on steam it would be divided up a bit where Valve gets a piece of the sale (I forget the actual numbes, I think its 10-15% of the products price is the deal there.) 

And it very well might be enough to recoup losses. If EA controls the full price of a $50.00 game, thats $50 in the bank to everyone. If they had it divded out, they would only get on average $14-$20 depending on the deal they get per copy sold. They would prefer it, but can't stop it. EA tried back in 2009 with the free content and got a lot of flak from the retailers for trying to undercut used sales. 

For what it's worth, a site like VGChartz shows their numbers as actual units sold, not revenue (or projected profit). 

[Brockololly]

LinksOcarina wrote...
They will make more money on PC because of Origins mostly. If their products were still on steam it would be divided up a bit where Valve gets a piece of the sale (I forget the actual numbes, I think its 10-15% of the products price is the deal there.)

Sure, EA would make more money per copy sold via Origin as opposed to something like Steam, where Valve gets a cut.

I do wonder if not being on Steam, which is by far and away the biggest DD outlet, ultimately helps or hurts them. On one hand, EA will take in everything via Origin. Yet I have to imagine they would sell a ton more copies of their games via Steam, simply due to Steam's greater visibility and more people using it daily than Origin.

Fast Jimmy wrote...
Lastly, you are assuming the company
coming out with the Tomb Raider numbers was 100% accurate. It also
assumes that VGChartz numbers had been updated in real time, which is
rarely be case. For a game that is less than 8 weeks old, VGChartz is a
poor tool. It does not receive, not is able to update its information on
a rapid enough basis for all titles, especially not with nearly as in
urgency as what the developer themselves would track it.
 

Well, it was Square-Enix that reported the Tomb Raider numbers recently, minus digital download sales. So unless Square-Enix is lying to the public, I'm pretty sure they have the most accurate count on numbers of their game being sold.

I don't think VGChartz is a very  valuable tool since its completely all over the place. Yes, you might have some instances where numbers match up but then you'll have some instances, especially in any discussion of PC games, where its worthless. Don't they still list Origins on PC in North America as not having sold a single copy? That's a pretty massive blind spot and Origins isn't exactly a recent game.

[Fast Jimmy]

^

It's not a 100% accurate tool... but since there is no competition for them or any alternative site that gives more accurate/complete numbers, it tells me that the information is not easily available for a reason. So take what they say with a grain of salt, but also realize it is the closest source of numbers available to the general public. If a developer has problems with fans assuming these numbers are correct in the general discourse, then it is on them to reveal their sales numbers. Otherwise, their silence can only be seen as tacit compliance with others referencing these numbers, regardless of their accuracy.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 17 avril 2013 - 03:49 .

[Robhuzz]

Make a great game for starters. I seriously think a great game sells itself. Sure without excess marketing the first day sales may not be as high (but then I never understood why people risk buying a game on day one when they have no credible sources to confirm the game's quality - offering loads of pre order benefits just tells me there's probably something wrong with the game and they're trying to get as many people to buy it as possible before the truth comes out) but word of mouth advertising is effective and free if the game is good enough...

I do wonder if not being on Steam, which is by far and away the biggest DD outlet, ultimately helps or hurts them. On one hand, EA will take in everything via Origin. Yet I have to imagine they would sell a ton more copies of their games via Steam, simply due to Steam's greater visibility and more people using it daily than Origin.

They'll probably come around in time. Wasn't it EA who once said that offering digital sales would 'diminish the value of our IP' or some nonsense like that? Then they saw how much money steam developers raked in when their games went on sale and also figured with the cost of a digital download being exactly nothing, selling a game for 10 bucks was still better than not selling the game, and voila.... origin sale inbound.

I can't see this being much different. Though EA is a slow learner, it may take some time. 

Modifié par Robhuzz, 17 avril 2013 - 03:22 .

[Allan Schumacher]

The circumstances surrounding Steam is exceptionally complicated. It's easy to say that we stubbornly aren't on Steam because we want to push Origin, or even that Valve doesn't want us on Steam because we're so integrated with Origin, but that's not really the case.

Both sides have drawn the line in the sand regarding some issues, and at this point it's "irreconcilable differences" until someone decides to budge (I'm skeptical of this happening in the short term, unfortunately).

[Fast Jimmy]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

The circumstances surrounding Steam is exceptionally complicated. It's easy to say that we stubbornly aren't on Steam because we want to push Origin, or even that Valve doesn't want us on Steam because we're so integrated with Origin, but that's not really the case.

Both sides have drawn the line in the sand regarding some issues, and at this point it's "irreconcilable differences" until someone decides to budge (I'm skeptical of this happening in the short term, unfortunately).

Watch out, Allan. This might get turned into an Examiner article. 

"EA and Valve at War!"

[TheJediSaint]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

"EA and Valve at War!"

I'd be totally down with this if it resulted in more TF2 hats.

[Fast Jimmy]

Angrywolves, would it be possible to edit the thread title to spell "do" correctly?

I feel like it is rubbing sand paper in my ocular cavities.

[MerinTB]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...
The circumstances surrounding Steam is exceptionally complicated. It's easy to say that we stubbornly aren't on Steam because we want to push Origin, or even that Valve doesn't want us on Steam because we're so integrated with Origin, but that's not really the case.

Both sides have drawn the line in the sand regarding some issues, and at this point it's "irreconcilable differences" until someone decides to budge (I'm skeptical of this happening in the short term, unfortunately).

Watch out, Allan. This might get turned into an Examiner article. 

"EA and Valve at War!"

I don't see Valve and Steam losing.  It's like how the movie and TV industry did everything in its power to make Netflix fail... and couldn't succeed.

Steam will win in the end.  EA will eventually learn that people don't want to shop at / have accounts at a dozen digital stores when one will do.

[Lluthren]

Give us free cake at purchase... I'll just buy myself a cake.

A collectors edition of course, with a book of concept art, making of, a hoodie (people love them hoodies) or a cool figure (like Alduin for Skyrim), codex and most important of all an enjoyable game. Actually all that before the 'enjoyable game' part sounds more like what companies do to reward people for waiting in line on the release date to get it.

Just let us know when it's for sale, that's all they have to do. They have a bunch of fans, who'd not hesitate to buy on release. They'll give their reviews and post play throughs and people who were on the fence before will see if they'd actually want to buy it. That's how it goes.

[Maverick827]

MerinTB wrote...

Steam will win in the end.  EA will eventually learn that people don't want to shop at / have accounts at a dozen digital stores when one will do.

Amazon is the only online store.

Photobucket is the only online image host.

Netflix is the only place to stream movies and television online.

[Sanunes]

MerinTB wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...
The circumstances surrounding Steam is exceptionally complicated. It's easy to say that we stubbornly aren't on Steam because we want to push Origin, or even that Valve doesn't want us on Steam because we're so integrated with Origin, but that's not really the case.

Both sides have drawn the line in the sand regarding some issues, and at this point it's "irreconcilable differences" until someone decides to budge (I'm skeptical of this happening in the short term, unfortunately).

Watch out, Allan. This might get turned into an Examiner article. 

"EA and Valve at War!"

I don't see Valve and Steam losing.  It's like how the movie and TV industry did everything in its power to make Netflix fail... and couldn't succeed.

Steam will win in the end.  EA will eventually learn that people don't want to shop at / have accounts at a dozen digital stores when one will do.

It depends on what the issues are, if its financial I bet they are more then willing to lose customers to gain a larger profit. Besides seeing Portal 2 on Origin the other day makes me wonder if neither side will "win" but have a middle ground.

Modifié par Sanunes, 17 avril 2013 - 05:15 .

[vinak]

The only thing Bioware needs to do to improve sales is to fix it's consumer trust and PR problems, and start respecting their own IP's again.

[Conduit0]

Robhuzz wrote...

Make a great game for starters. I seriously think a great game sells itself. Sure without excess marketing the first day sales may not be as high (but then I never understood why people risk buying a game on day one when they have no credible sources to confirm the game's quality - offering loads of pre order benefits just tells me there's probably something wrong with the game and they're trying to get as many people to buy it as possible before the truth comes out) but word of mouth advertising is effective and free if the game is good enough...

I do wonder if not being on Steam, which is by far and away the biggest DD outlet, ultimately helps or hurts them. On one hand, EA will take in everything via Origin. Yet I have to imagine they would sell a ton more copies of their games via Steam, simply due to Steam's greater visibility and more people using it daily than Origin.

They'll probably come around in time. Wasn't it EA who once said that offering digital sales would 'diminish the value of our IP' or some nonsense like that? Then they saw how much money steam developers raked in when their games went on sale and also figured with the cost of a digital download being exactly nothing, selling a game for 10 bucks was still better than not selling the game, and voila.... origin sale inbound.

I can't see this being much different. Though EA is a slow learner, it may take some time. 

Thats not really fair, Valve has had nearly a decade of experience with Steam, and it took them a long time to get Steam into a state that people started accepting it as anything more than just hoop to jump through to play Valve games.

[sandalisthemaker]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Angrywolves, would it be possible to edit the thread title to spell "do" correctly?

I feel like it is rubbing sand paper in my ocular cavities.

Lol
Yes please.

[MerinTB]

Maverick827 wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
Steam will win in the end.  EA will eventually learn that people don't want to shop at / have accounts at a dozen digital stores when one will do.

Amazon is the only online store.

Photobucket is the only online image host.

Netflix is the only place to stream movies and television online.

It's not a matter of being "the only one" if that is your point (isn't Photobucket dead as compared to sites like Flicker or Instagram?  I don't follow these trends) as much as the ridiculous "exclusive content" nonsense.

You can have Wal-Mart, Shopko, K-Mart, Target... all selling very similar things.  It's when "only at Wal-Mart" can you get movie X or book Y or game Z that it gets silly. 

It'd be like having to (back in the day when this stuff existed) go to Blockbuster to rent Universal films but Hollywood Video to pick up Paramount films, or only Barnes & Noble carrying HarperCollins but needing to go to BooksWorld to pick up Random House, or going to Tower Records for Sony but having to travel to Virgin to get Warner.

All the major publishers should sell their products at all the major venues.  And the venues then have to work at bringing in the customers.

Would you really want there to be Colombia movie theaters, Fox movie theaters, Disney movie theaters, etc?

[LinksOcarina]

MerinTB wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...
The circumstances surrounding Steam is exceptionally complicated. It's easy to say that we stubbornly aren't on Steam because we want to push Origin, or even that Valve doesn't want us on Steam because we're so integrated with Origin, but that's not really the case.

Both sides have drawn the line in the sand regarding some issues, and at this point it's "irreconcilable differences" until someone decides to budge (I'm skeptical of this happening in the short term, unfortunately).

Watch out, Allan. This might get turned into an Examiner article. 

"EA and Valve at War!"

I don't see Valve and Steam losing.  It's like how the movie and TV industry did everything in its power to make Netflix fail... and couldn't succeed.

Steam will win in the end.  EA will eventually learn that people don't want to shop at / have accounts at a dozen digital stores when one will do.

It's a good thing its not a fight then. After all, Valve needs competition with Steam. So far the only alternative is GOG which is really supposed to be offering alternative games anyway, old games at least. 

Origin is just the next one up. If it keeps going it will basically be console war on the PC, ironically, which will basically become a sort of "ill use both for what I want" type of deal. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 17 avril 2013 - 08:37 .

[Whitering]

Make really good games again, and this, have a PC version, and a console version, and never the twain shall meet. The UI development must happen completely separately. The Keyboard and Mouse are the ultimate controllers, just look at all those snazzy button combos, they must be used.

Movement must not be clunky, give PC users a freaking pointer.

Bottom line, the PC is at this point, and within 6 months of the release of the next console, always the more powerful platform. Cater to both, they are not the same and you cannot release the same game. I will not buy it. I already seriously regret buying ME 3, I could have just watched the story bits online, it's not a PC game, it's an Xbox game that works on the PC.

Also, with the PC version, toolset please. Xbox users would be shocked at how many little to major bugs are fixed for PC users when a toolset is available? Loose all your gear in the Silverite Mine in awakening? I did before the mod came out to fix it (shockingly Bioware never bothered). We also get the play the game we want that way and they would hear much less whining from the PC crowd.

I don't really trust this new engine at all, give us the tools to fix things the way we want and I might consider buying DA3, if it has a PC UI.

[Maverick827]

MerinTB wrote...

It's not a matter of being "the only one" if that is your point

The point is that people have already proven themselves willing to subject themselves to having multiple accounts on multiple websites as it is.  To say that Origin will fail because of this contradicts the history of online consumer trends.

Would you really want there to be Colombia movie theaters, Fox movie theaters, Disney movie theaters, etc?

No, but I'm not going to boycott the next Star Wars movie because it's in different theater.  I might even find that I prefer Disney theaters and look forward to seeing movies when they're in Disney theaters more than I do other movies in Regal theaters.  Even if I don't, I'm not going to blame Disney for not wanting to pay someone (often times their competitors!) to do something they feel they can do for themselves.

I don't think twenty digital distribution services can work.  That would undermine the entire point of a DDS in the first place.  But I don't think two or three is the end of the world.