204 réponses à ce sujet

[Hrungr]

andar91 wrote...

Hrungr wrote...

While I'm excited for DAI, I do worry sometimes about how it will be received by the general gaming public, even if the game itself turns out be amazing.

Will people who didn't buy DA2 find that a psychological barrier to buying DAI? What if serious competition, like W3, is released in the same timeframe? Can DAI attract significant new players to the franchise? What if DAI turns out to be a great game marred by serious game-breaking bugs at release?

From what we've seen, I think DAI has the potential to be the best in the franchise. I just hope they can get the sales to reflect that if it is...

Actually, I think they've already taken some good steps. For one, they're calling it Dragon Age Inquisition instead of Dragon Age 3, which will help it stand aside from the previous games. New players will likely feel more comfortable and less like they had to play the previous games to pick it up.

Most of the rest of it is up to marketing. Hopefully, they'll do a good job of getting info out there. If the game's released in Fall 2014, that means they'll be able to show off a lot (I would think at this point) at the next E3, which will certainly create a buzz.

One of the larger stumbling blocks it will have, I think, is that it's a fantasy game. I think fantasy is a harder sell to the audience at-large than sci-fi, which is why there are so many sci-fi games but not as many fantasy games. This is just a general perception, I don't have numbers to back this up.

Calling it DAI was a good start. And it'll interesting to see how the game and marketing strikes that balance between trying attract new players, bring back those who skipped DA2 and trying to win back the ones who played DA2, but felt Bioware dropped the ball.

But I think the fantasy genre itself is quite alive and well as other AAA titles have shown - Skyrim, Diablo, etc.

[dreamgazer]

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

Fredvdp wrote...

The problem with the argument presented in the article, is that the last three major BioWare games, being DA2, ME3 and SWTOR, were not all disasters. DA2 was rushed, sure, but ME3, despite its problems, was still a great game, same as SWTOR.

ToR wasn't a disaster? 2nd most expensive game ever developed, and it started hemorrhaging subscribers after the first month and went free to play in under a year. That's not a disaster to you? Are you crazy?

That's a testament to the foolishness of entering the subscription-MMO market this late in the game. 

Apparently it's bounced back rather well after going F2P.

Didn't they close the Australia and Pacific Servers this year? I don't how well they've bounced back, but I'd say it's nowhere near the success that they wanted it to be.

http://massively.joy...of-star-wars-t/

I first read that article on Reddit, and I'm just gonna quote a comment I read on there.

"Currently from this article we know that there's under 500k subs, and that the ~current (roughly) revenue is double than when it was f2p. Thats all.

Before f2p revenue = BF2p
Revenue after f2p = AF2p

All the article tells us is:(BF2p) x2 = (AF2p)We dont actually know exactly how much the revenue was before f2p, nor how much it is now after f2p (except that they are getting atleast the revenue from <500k subs). Its obviously incredibly safe to assume they are getting a good chunk of additional revenue on top of those <500k subs, but we dont know if its a huge amount or a small amount."

Congrats on them for keeping the game afloat, but again it's not the big success that would've justified the insane amount of money they poured into the game.

http://massively.joy...s-says-swtor-i/

Chief Financial Officer Blake Jorgensen commented on SWTOR's rocky first year: "Yes the original expectations obviously were very, very large, and obviously the multiplayer MMO world has -- the popularly has come down over time and we tried to restructure the Star Wars business to better match the economics. It's a great business that's very repeatable. We brought the economics in line so it's a profitable business for us."

Not sure if all this sounds like the profit-killing disaster that you're talking about here.

[dreamgazer]

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

This isn't Kotaku, Forbes is a respectable website.

Based on what criteria, exactly? 

[LinksOcarina]

@dreamgazer, you are right, It is not going to be a disaster at this point. They can litereally make small profits a year on TOR and still be successful int he long run. Again, its long term thinking instead of short-term goals to try to nab a piece of the WoW pie, like most other MMO's do.

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 05 janvier 2014 - 06:35 .

[Travie]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Travie wrote...

Edit: I'd just echo what others have said about Forbes, they (especially their tech section) are an organization that is beyond repute. 

I'm calling shenannigans on that. No one is beyond repute. As I said I expect better from Kain. This time he simply missed the mark completely, and it shows. 

In what way? His reasoning was sound and it's an issue that people have been talking about alot, even on these forums. 

[Angrywolves]

I had mentioned this in ther predictions thread yesterday

Obviously as I said then wealthy people read Forbes and that includes investors It's problematic for the EA investors.I hope they accept that it's just a speculation piece and wait and see how the game does.
More pressure on Bioware.More pressure on Gaider, Laidlaw, Lee, Flynn, Darrah, etc etc etc.
Not from the fans this time.

And of course the article didn't mention the recent problems with Dead Space, Dead Space 3 considered a flop, Dead Space 4 cancelled and layoffs at the studio that did the game.

Of course we fans had had issues with Bioware, some fans went overboard, some developers and cough cough former employees of Bioware diss the fans, some think the fans are always wrong, but I wonder if it feels different when it comes from someone like this writer.

I don't own any EA stock I don't think I do, although I haven't checked my 401K lately.Rotfl.When it comes to financial writers, stocks, shareholders, the financial networks, financial bloggers and so on, that could be a different animal for Bioware to have to deal with and appease.

Should be interesting to see how they handle it.:innocent:

Modifié par Angrywolves, 05 janvier 2014 - 06:48 .

[Travie]

dreamgazer wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

This isn't Kotaku, Forbes is a respectable website.

Based on what criteria, exactly? 

A long history of journalistic integrity. They are one of the few sites in which the phrase 'videogame journalism' can be said without irony. 

[Bleachrude]

Keep in mind that Forbes has two trpes of "reporters". Actual journalists and what I call opinion writers.

[lady_v23]

Bleachrude wrote...

Keep in mind that Forbes has two trpes of "reporters". Actual journalists and what I call opinion writers.

this!

[dreamgazer]

Travie wrote...

A long history of journalistic integrity. They are one of the few sites in which the phrase 'videogame journalism' can be said without irony. 

(laughs)

Having seen how their videogame wing played the ME3 issue like a fiddle, I call bullshit.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

dreamgazer wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

This isn't Kotaku, Forbes is a respectable website.

Based on what criteria, exactly? 

Well, as far as economics and business news goes, yeah.

For video games... yeah.

[ghostzodd]

Travie wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

This isn't Kotaku, Forbes is a respectable website.

Based on what criteria, exactly? 

A long history of journalistic integrity. They are one of the few sites in which the phrase 'videogame journalism' can be said without irony. 

There is only one person who can be considered a gaming journalist, Jim Sterling

[dreamgazer]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

This isn't Kotaku, Forbes is a respectable website.

Based on what criteria, exactly? 

Well, as far as economics and business news goes, yeah.

For video games... yeah.

Yeah, I'm not disputing Forbes' reputation in that arena. 

That doesn't give everything else under their umbrella a pass, though. 

[Travie]

lady_v23 wrote...

Bleachrude wrote...

Keep in mind that Forbes has two trpes of "reporters". Actual journalists and what I call opinion writers.

this!

Erik Kain is solidly in the former, and he covers a wide range of tech issues.

(laughs)

Having seen how their videogame wing played the ME3 issue like a fiddle, I call bulls

I remember their reporting on the story, and would you suggest that they ignore one of the biggest issues of the year simply because it's controversial? Sorry if they didn't present the facts in a way that reflected your own opinions, but they weren't anywhere approaching exploitation as some other publications like Kotaku or Rev3 attempted to.

[GreyLycanTrope]

Meh it's journos taking bets on what's likely to be the next video game controversy. DA:I is a easy pick for doom predictions given what happened with the last two games. Though to me that's enough reason for Bioware to try and play it pretty safe with DA:I and actually do the opposite, my money's on Lighting Returns for pissed off fans.

[ghostzodd]

Greylycantrope wrote...

Meh it's journos taking bets on what's likely to be the next video game controversy. DA:I is a easy pick for doom predictions given what happened with the last two games. Though to me that's enough reason for Bioware to try and play it pretty safe with DA:I and actually do the opposite, my money's on Lighting Returns for pissed off fans.

and bioware's track record over the past 4 years, gives some weight to the doom prediction

[lady_v23]

Greylycantrope wrote...

Meh it's journos taking bets on what's likely to be the next video game controversy. DA:I is a easy pick for doom predictions given what happened with the last two games. Though to me that's enough reason for Bioware to try and play it pretty safe with DA:I and actually do the opposite, my money's on Lighting Returns for pissed off fans.

It actually looks really good

[Mathias]

dreamgazer wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

Fredvdp wrote...

The problem with the argument presented in the article, is that the last three major BioWare games, being DA2, ME3 and SWTOR, were not all disasters. DA2 was rushed, sure, but ME3, despite its problems, was still a great game, same as SWTOR.

ToR wasn't a disaster? 2nd most expensive game ever developed, and it started hemorrhaging subscribers after the first month and went free to play in under a year. That's not a disaster to you? Are you crazy?

That's a testament to the foolishness of entering the subscription-MMO market this late in the game. 

Apparently it's bounced back rather well after going F2P.

Didn't they close the Australia and Pacific Servers this year? I don't how well they've bounced back, but I'd say it's nowhere near the success that they wanted it to be.

http://massively.joy...of-star-wars-t/

I first read that article on Reddit, and I'm just gonna quote a comment I read on there.

"Currently from this article we know that there's under 500k subs, and that the ~current (roughly) revenue is double than when it was f2p. Thats all.

Before f2p revenue = BF2p
Revenue after f2p = AF2p

All the article tells us is:(BF2p) x2 = (AF2p)We dont actually know exactly how much the revenue was before f2p, nor how much it is now after f2p (except that they are getting atleast the revenue from <500k subs). Its obviously incredibly safe to assume they are getting a good chunk of additional revenue on top of those <500k subs, but we dont know if its a huge amount or a small amount."

Congrats on them for keeping the game afloat, but again it's not the big success that would've justified the insane amount of money they poured into the game.

http://massively.joy...s-says-swtor-i/

Chief Financial Officer Blake Jorgensen commented on SWTOR's rocky first year: "Yes the original expectations obviously were very, very large, and obviously the multiplayer MMO world has -- the popularly has come down over time and we tried to restructure the Star Wars business to better match the economics. It's a great business that's very repeatable. We brought the economics in line so it's a profitable business for us."

Not sure if all this sounds like the profit-killing disaster that you're talking about here.

I said in my previous post that they're making enough profit to stay afloat, but that it's still not the big success they were planning on. Mr. Jorgensen even said so in that quote you posted.

This isn't even getting into the many gameplay problems that plague ToR. It's just not that great of a MMO, which is why the Subcription based dropped so fast after first month of release. 

[Mathias]

ghostzodd wrote...

Travie wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

This isn't Kotaku, Forbes is a respectable website.

Based on what criteria, exactly? 

A long history of journalistic integrity. They are one of the few sites in which the phrase 'videogame journalism' can be said without irony. 

There is only one person who can be considered a gaming journalist, Jim Sterling

Yeah...no

[CroGamer002]

dreamgazer wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

This isn't Kotaku, Forbes is a respectable website.

Based on what criteria, exactly? 

Based on all 400 people that subscribe Forbes.

[Travie]

Mesina2 wrote...

Based on all 400 people that subscribe Forbes.

Shots fired!

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Mesina2 wrote...

Based on all 400 people that subscribe Forbes.

A lot more people than 400 subscribe to Forbes.

I had a complimentary subscription for 6 months, and I thought about keeping it. It's a great magazine.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

I just want to see a ****storm.

I thrive on chaos and human suffering.

[chuckles471]

It's not Bioware as a company that is at risk. They have Mass Effect so are pretty safe right now as a name that EA wants to use to sell games.

I would think that Dragon Age as a main IP and AAA game would be at risk, if Inquisition doesn't meet the shareholders expectations. If it was to "fail", it would probably end up as a free to play or mobile series.

[Liamv2]

Lol at forbes being a respectable website.

Just because they report on politics as well as games doesn't make them any less laughable when they write something that has been getting spewed out constantly since ME3's release.