159 réponses à ce sujet

[Fast Jimmy]

David7204 wrote...

Do you any evidence that these games are 'hardly the exception'?

How many would you like? I'll give you any (realistic) number you give, but I don't want to supply an example, have you try and handwave it, have me go back to digging and then the entire conversation fizzle out.

I want to know - how many would convince you?

EDIT: The reason I ask is that these just took five minutes of effortless searching. More would take more time, but I'm not going to do it unless I can say, at the end of it, that David acquieses that my point is 100% valid.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 18 décembre 2013 - 03:37 .

[David7204]

I don't think examples are going to convince me.

[Fast Jimmy]

David7204 wrote...

I don't think examples are going to convince me.

Why did you ask for some then?

[SomeoneStoleMyName]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Humans in general are not very smart, and RPGs (In my presumtious opinion) caters to smarter and wiser people - not the stupid masses. However an epic commercial on TV might drag these stupid masses in.

I'd just like to address this, as it was talked about in another thread the other day.

RPGs being for "smart" people, while games like Madden or FIFA being for "dumb sports jocks" is pretty much a laughable concept right now. The big name sports franchises sell three to four times more units than successful RPGs (if we ignore Skyrim for the moment, since it truly is an industry rarity). Yet a sports game these days have much more complicated stats, leveling, training opportunities, build layouts and gear/equipment combinations than seen in the most recent Bioware or CDProjekt games.

The idea that "RPGs are for smart people" seems to be not true anymore, since RPGs are increasingly moving towards simplicity, while the more complex game systems found in sports are the ones, ironically enough, making the most dough.

Granted, there is more to making an RPG complex than pure stat juggling, such as deep story or complex issues, but I'd say that's less intelligence based and more simply refined narrative preferences. Smart is reading A Brief History of Time. Refined is reading To Kill a Mockingbird.

Meh... A very good point 

[Maria Caliban]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

EA does not expect DA:I to sell 5 million.

They'd like 1 million the first month and 2-3 million by the time it ends up in their quarterly report.

Mass Effect 3 managed 3.5 million and is, I believe, BioWare's best selling game. If DA:I could reach those numbers, no one would complain, but I don't think anyone is counting on it.

According to VGChartz, ME3 sold much more than 3.5 million. The 360 version alone is estimated to have sold 2.6.

1. I am apt to believe BioWare over VGChartz.

2. EA will not wait 20 months to determine if DA:I is a success or not.

[Fast Jimmy]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

EA does not expect DA:I to sell 5 million.

They'd like 1 million the first month and 2-3 million by the time it ends up in their quarterly report.

Mass Effect 3 managed 3.5 million and is, I believe, BioWare's best selling game. If DA:I could reach those numbers, no one would complain, but I don't think anyone is counting on it.

According to VGChartz, ME3 sold much more than 3.5 million. The 360 version alone is estimated to have sold 2.6.

1. I am apt to believe BioWare over VGChartz.

2. EA will not wait 20 months to determine if DA:I is a success or not.

Well, the article you linked was mid-March. I'm not saying Bioware can't be believed, but two weeks into a game's release is not an accurate review of a game's total sales. Heck, DA:O's sales hadn't even begun to pick up any sort of pace at the 2 week mark, since it's sales were spiked due to great word of mouth rather than an effective marketing campaign.

And I seriously doubt major production on a sequel starts much sooner than 20 weeks after release. That's the only reason EA would need to make the call on whether it was a success or not - in determining solely if it was worth funding a sequel (should Bioware seek to make one).

[Fast Jimmy]

SomeoneStoleMyName wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Humans in general are not very smart, and RPGs (In my presumtious opinion) caters to smarter and wiser people - not the stupid masses. However an epic commercial on TV might drag these stupid masses in.

I'd just like to address this, as it was talked about in another thread the other day.

RPGs being for "smart" people, while games like Madden or FIFA being for "dumb sports jocks" is pretty much a laughable concept right now. The big name sports franchises sell three to four times more units than successful RPGs (if we ignore Skyrim for the moment, since it truly is an industry rarity). Yet a sports game these days have much more complicated stats, leveling, training opportunities, build layouts and gear/equipment combinations than seen in the most recent Bioware or CDProjekt games.

The idea that "RPGs are for smart people" seems to be not true anymore, since RPGs are increasingly moving towards simplicity, while the more complex game systems found in sports are the ones, ironically enough, making the most dough.

Granted, there is more to making an RPG complex than pure stat juggling, such as deep story or complex issues, but I'd say that's less intelligence based and more simply refined narrative preferences. Smart is reading A Brief History of Time. Refined is reading To Kill a Mockingbird.

Meh... A very good point 

Sorry - I had not intended to draw a frowny face for that comment.

More that the concept that RPGs are for "smart" people, while arguably at one point true, seems to be in decline rather than incline.

[Angrywolves]

Maria Caliban wrote...

EA does not expect DA:I to sell 5 million.

They'd like 1 million the first month and 2-3 million by the time it ends up in their quarterly report.

Mass Effect 3 managed 3.5 million and is, I believe, BioWare's best selling game. If DA:I could reach those numbers, no one would complain, but I don't think anyone is counting on it.

You know this how ?
Not being mean, but I doubt your reasoning. It seems to me you're way low balling their likely expectations.
If they've been throwing money Bioware's way to finish  the game as has been rumored, why should they accept so little a return ?:whistle:

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Maria Caliban wrote...

EA does not expect DA:I to sell 5 million.

They'd like 1 million the first month and 2-3 million by the time it ends up in their quarterly report.

Mass Effect 3 managed 3.5 million and is, I believe, BioWare's best selling game. If DA:I could reach those numbers, no one would complain, but I don't think anyone is counting on it.

In that article, the 3.5 million refers to the sales of the very first week. 

According to the EA quarterly, Dragon Age 2 already had 2 million sales about 3 weeks post-release (report said FY ending 31st March) and that was not enough to warrant an expansion.

Considering the extra time and resources devoted to Inquisition (the delay), 5 million is not an un-realistic expectation for success, with EA hoping for 3 million in the first month.

The break-even point would be much less (considering DA 2 still turned a profit), but we are talking about success here. Lukewarm sales for Inquisition might be good enough for EA on paper, but it might not justify making another sequel - that was the case for DA 2, which is why DA:I could make or break the franchise.

[Conduit0]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

In an industry that spends, dollar for dollar, as much on advertising as it does for actual game development...

I doubt that.

http://en.wikipedia....eting_of_Halo_3

http://bf3blog.com/2...top-50-million/

http://www.gamesindu...on-says-analyst 
to be followed up with 
http://www.cinemable...rket-58922.html


And, lastly, a quick info-pic:

The rise in cost of development is a direct result of the demands of gamers. If the games coming out this year aren't bigger and prettier than the games that came out last year gamers cry that they've been cheated by lazy developers.The rising cost of advertising is the result of ballooning development costs, you can't sell millions of copies of a game unless millions of people know the game exists in the first place.

[The Baconer]

Conduit0 wrote...
The rise in cost of development is a direct result of the demands of publishers.

Fix'd

[ISpeakTheTruth]

If it ends up selling anything less than 4 -5 million I think its fair to say the franchise is over. DAO sold amazingly for new IP but DA2 sucked all the momentum and probably a lot of the belief that EA has of it being a worthwhile investment. After all being roundly hated by the fan base and not even selling as much as the original isn't great.

If it can sell closer to DAO then I see the series getting another sequel if not then I don't see it going anywhere soon.

[Sanunes]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Well, the article you linked was mid-March. I'm not saying Bioware can't be believed, but two weeks into a game's release is not an accurate review of a game's total sales. Heck, DA:O's sales hadn't even begun to pick up any sort of pace at the 2 week mark, since it's sales were spiked due to great word of mouth rather than an effective marketing campaign.

And I seriously doubt major production on a sequel starts much sooner than 20 weeks after release. That's the only reason EA would need to make the call on whether it was a success or not - in determining solely if it was worth funding a sequel (should Bioware seek to make one).

Sadly the problem is games like Assassin's Creed or the Call of Duty franchise they are non-stop production and have multiple teams working on the game franchise at any one time. 

I wish there was a way to track sales now more then just VGChartz, for the digital distribution has really hurt their predictions on sales numbers and I think it would be good to stop the fans speculation of how well a game is doing.

Edit: Fixed quote.

Modifié par Sanunes, 18 décembre 2013 - 04:40 .

[Sanunes]

ISpeakTheTruth wrote...

If it ends up selling anything less than 4 -5 million I think its fair to say the franchise is over. DAO sold amazingly for new IP but DA2 sucked all the momentum and probably a lot of the belief that EA has of it being a worthwhile investment. After all being roundly hated by the fan base and not even selling as much as the original isn't great.

If it can sell closer to DAO then I see the series getting another sequel if not then I don't see it going anywhere soon.

Sales numbers really don't drive the decision, its how profitable it is.  Its like movies, a movie might only make $20 million in its run in a theater, but when the production costs were under a million they will make a sequel and then you look at a movie that generated $70 million dollars, but is considered a failure because it cost $115 million to make.  Its the same with games, with Dragon Age: Origins the game was in development for almost five years (if my memory serves) and sold a projected four million copies, but with Dragon Age 2 was in development for a little over 18 months and sold a projected two million copies.  So with that thinking it could be calculated that Dragon Age 2 took a third of the development costs with half the sales, so could be calculated to be more profitable.

[Conduit0]

The Baconer wrote...

Conduit0 wrote...
The rise in cost of development is a direct result of the demands of publishers.

Fix'd

No, not "fix'd", nor fixed for that matter. If gamers were satisfied with maintaining the status quo there would be zero incentive for publishers to spend any more money than is necessary. Its not in a publishers best interest to raise development costs, after all why spend 100 million dollars on a game if you could spend 20 million dollars and sell the same number of copies at the same price point.

[Fast Jimmy]

The rise in cost of development is a direct result of the demands of gamers. If the games coming out this year aren't bigger and prettier than the games that came out last year gamers cry that they've been cheated by lazy developers.The rising cost of advertising is the result of ballooning development costs, you can't sell millions of copies of a game unless millions of people know the game exists in the first place.

This is arguable. Wii games blew the doors off video game sales for a number of years, despite being of lower graphical quality. The Guitar Hero games always had shoddy graphics, but excelled in the gameplay they were delivering. And games like TWD have recently received great critical and user acclaim while also making a ton of money, but have simple animations and graphics.

I think the much more likely scenario is that games with cutting edge graphics are much easier to market with little to no improved gameplay or sound game design. Basically, it becomes easy to mask the bad games with shiny graphics. So you have a huge budget for graphics, a huge budget for marketing, which means your game has to sell millions upon millions of units in order to break even.

But if you devote your game to a focus on gameplay, story or other unique aspect and forego the super-expensive graphics and the multi-million dollar budgets, you may find that gamers (or, at least, ENOUGH gamers) buy your game to make a good return on the money invested, since you can get away with lower production costs across the board.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 18 décembre 2013 - 04:53 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Conduit0 wrote...

The Baconer wrote...

Conduit0 wrote...
The rise in cost of development is a direct result of the demands of publishers.

Fix'd

No, not "fix'd", nor fixed for that matter. If gamers were satisfied with maintaining the status quo there would be zero incentive for publishers to spend any more money than is necessary. Its not in a publishers best interest to raise development costs, after all why spend 100 million dollars on a game if you could spend 20 million dollars and sell the same number of copies at the same price point.

Because it's not about game development costs - it's about marketing costs.

A game is easier to market with the highest end graphics possible. GTA V cost $130 million to make (including its shiny graphics), cost another $120 million to market and then wound up being the highest grossing game of all time, with revenue over a billion dollars. 

If I can spend $250 million and earn a billion, why would I want to spend $20 million to earn $40? Just like with the movie industry, there is much more money in box office blockbusters rather than in smaller, more reasonable movies. You find the product that can be marketed and plugged to absolute shame and then rake in the money. That's not a demand from the consumers, it just shows the effectiveness of marketing campaigns.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 18 décembre 2013 - 04:57 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Sanunes wrote...

ISpeakTheTruth wrote...

If it ends up selling anything less than 4 -5 million I think its fair to say the franchise is over. DAO sold amazingly for new IP but DA2 sucked all the momentum and probably a lot of the belief that EA has of it being a worthwhile investment. After all being roundly hated by the fan base and not even selling as much as the original isn't great.

If it can sell closer to DAO then I see the series getting another sequel if not then I don't see it going anywhere soon.

Sales numbers really don't drive the decision, its how profitable it is.  Its like movies, a movie might only make $20 million in its run in a theater, but when the production costs were under a million they will make a sequel and then you look at a movie that generated $70 million dollars, but is considered a failure because it cost $115 million to make.  Its the same with games, with Dragon Age: Origins the game was in development for almost five years (if my memory serves) and sold a projected four million copies, but with Dragon Age 2 was in development for a little over 18 months and sold a projected two million copies.  So with that thinking it could be calculated that Dragon Age 2 took a third of the development costs with half the sales, so could be calculated to be more profitable.

Not including, of course, intangible costs, such as dips in brand loyalty or consumer confidence. 

[The Baconer]

Conduit0 wrote...
No, not "fix'd", nor fixed for that matter. If gamers were satisfied with maintaining the status quo there would be zero incentive for publishers to spend any more money than is necessary.

Since when did Call of Duty, Assassin's Creed, Battlefield, or Sports Franchise X shake up the status quo? When you look at a game like Assassin's Creed: Revelations, with all of its re-used assets, and compare that to The Witcher, Dark Souls, Portal, DOTA, or any multitude of wildly successful indie games on the market right now, do you honestly think that it's the development of the game that makes the entire project so expensive? Do you really think the fans of those franchises are really expecting a change in the status quo when they go to buy the next installment?

Its not in a publishers best interest to raise development costs, after all why spend 100 million dollars on a game if you could spend 20 million dollars and sell the same number of copies at the same price point.

You're assuming that these publishers truly know what gamers want, and that they are intelligent, and know how to make responsible investments in order to achieve realistic goals.

[Fast Jimmy]

Sanunes wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Well, the article you linked was mid-March. I'm not saying Bioware can't be believed, but two weeks into a game's release is not an accurate review of a game's total sales. Heck, DA:O's sales hadn't even begun to pick up any sort of pace at the 2 week mark, since it's sales were spiked due to great word of mouth rather than an effective marketing campaign.

And I seriously doubt major production on a sequel starts much sooner than 20 weeks after release. That's the only reason EA would need to make the call on whether it was a success or not - in determining solely if it was worth funding a sequel (should Bioware seek to make one).

Sadly the problem is games like Assassin's Creed or the Call of Duty franchise they are non-stop production and have multiple teams working on the game franchise at any one time. 

I wish there was a way to track sales now more then just VGChartz, for the digital distribution has really hurt their predictions on sales numbers and I think it would be good to stop the fans speculation of how well a game is doing.

Edit: Fixed quote.

I, too, wish VGChartz had more reliable metrics. But, on the other hand, digital distribution is pretty much only three groups - Steam, Origin and GoG. And they aren't playing ball.

If the digital distribution companies and the developers aren't willing to release reliable numbers, then the public's only venue of pulling numbers has to be (possibly false) estimates. If developers or publishers have problems with consumers or business anaylsts using these numbers, then they can work to either release their own numbers in a transparent and scheduled manner, leverage pressure on digital distributors to begin disclosing sales information or just sit there and not be surprised when inaccurate information is widely used when discussing the success of your title.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 18 décembre 2013 - 05:19 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

I don't think examples are going to convince me.

They never do. Nothing ever convinces you. You're right cause you're David, and you're David cause you're right.