And rename the game to Origins Age: Origins, Origins Age 2, and Origins Age: Origination.
I'm told that Origins Age involves time magic, where the new protagonist goes back in time to kill the Warden before s/he becomes a Warden, because a chain of events were set in motion in the future where the Hero of Ferelden brings doom upon the entire world.
Without getting into it, the things people think EA could to do misrepresent their success would get them in some hot water with the various market regulators. EA's stock is up and trending up and they're selling DA:I as their biggest success. Regardless of how it did objectively, if they had a better product or more successful product to pitch they would use that one.
QFT. Were you working in stocks market as well in a past life, In Exile?
Ea can't say anything else. People can find any and all information on why EA and Bioware are behaving like they do in the 10-K and 10K-A ( if they have a legal friend to help them translate legalese into plain English).
Otherwise EA would be liable to 'prosecution' from qualified investors and hedge funds, and it would expose them to things akin to 'market manipulation', again to avoid legalese, among other stuff.
DAI is a financial disaster, due to marketing costs mostly.
QFT. Were you working in stocks market as well in a past life, In Exile?
Ea can't say anything else. People can find any and all information on why EA and Bioware are behaving like they do in the 10-K and 10K-A ( if they have a legal friend to help them translate legalese into plain English).
Otherwise EA would be liable to 'prosecution' from qualified investors and hedge funds, and it would expose them to things akin to 'market manipulation', again to avoid legalese, among other stuff.
DAI is a financial disaster, due to marketing costs mostly.
Oh dear. Your first three statements may have merit, I have no stock market knowledge.
Then why state as fact
"DAI is a financial disaster, due to marketing costs mostly."
when you have no more clue what the reality is than anyone else here?
Assuming you do not have access to EA Exec insider knowledge.
I appreciate that you appear to enjoy dispensing misery on the forum as
I have seen several of your posts, but following plausible statements with hyperbole does not make it so.
Usually only 30-40% of people actually complete games, so it isn't at all surprising if many players don't complete side things like killing all of the dragons.
DAI is a financial disaster, due to marketing costs mostly.
DAI is a financial disaster, due to marketing costs mostly.
Pffft, you're not the only one that can make **** up. "DA:O was a financial disaster, due to the length of the development process"...
QFT. Were you working in stocks market as well in a past life, In Exile?
Ea can't say anything else. People can find any and all information on why EA and Bioware are behaving like they do in the 10-K and 10K-A ( if they have a legal friend to help them translate legalese into plain English).
Otherwise EA would be liable to 'prosecution' from qualified investors and hedge funds, and it would expose them to things akin to 'market manipulation', again to avoid legalese, among other stuff.
DAI is a financial disaster, due to marketing costs mostly.
Without knowing anything about their marketing costs, you really can't say. Is it really likely that they would specifically point to DAI as being part of their financial success if that wasn't the case, though? I mean, they didn't mention Sims 4 ...
I would like to be pointed towards this massively expensive marketing strategy for DAI. No ridiculously expensive CGI trailers, no tv ads (at least here in the UK), no ads in my local game shops (so limited advertising). Again here in UK, seemingly limited print run on PC in local shops as well, no physical PC deluxe edition. PC distribution seemed slanted towards the digital. Also EA Access weighted XBox One somewhat towards digital distribution as well (cheaper distribution costs). Some of the marketing was clearly aimed at community involvement (character kits for cosplayers, fan competitions, the various vo vids) and uploading YouTube gameplay vids etc. Not desperately expensive stuff, but can reap rewards (word of mouth, winning back the hardcore fanbase, showing rather than telling etc). Outside of that, I remember a couple of surveys earlier in development and those character blurbs, which I seem to remember Allan saying were done by a junior team.
Honestly, the (limited) marketing I've been exposed to seems to have been done relatively quietly, cheaply and smartly, unlike the nonsemse that was DA2's marketing, or the fun but somewhat misleading 'This is the New ****' stuff for Origins.
Nothing I'm seeing there indicates a marketing strategy of particularly huge expense, unless you know differently?
Edit: @dlux I killed 4 dragons on my first playthrough, will probably do the rest at some point. You can't assume that everyone who plays the game slays all the dragons by any means.
Double Edit: http://files.shareho...ings_Script.pdf
That's a link to the earnings call, in which they say (on page 6) 'Outperformance versus our outlook was driven by the record-breaking Dragon Age: Inquisition performance. In addition, sell-through was extremely healthy across the market, enabling us to
Pffft, you're not the only one that can make **** up. "DA:O was a financial disaster, due to the length of the development process"...
Which is the main reason why complex tactical programming has completely disappeared.......probably.
So you're say that most players avoided killing any dragons? If that is the case then EA should probably remove them in the sequel.
Many players also failed to complete Origin's main quest judging by completion numbers. Or play dwarves. Of course, if you were to remove the former, you'd probably see rioting in the streets, not to mention it hasn't stopped TES from including a main quest with each game. Remove the latter? Well, we saw the reaction to removing race in DA2....
So you're say that most players avoided killing any dragons? If that is the case then EA should probably remove them in the sequel.
Well in my playthrough I never went after the Dragons. I beat the game and may someday go back and kill them...but as it stands they're all still alive and kicking so yeah it happens. You see some people are not compulsive about finishing games. They go at their own pace or ignore content that doesn't interest them. When I played Far Cry 3 I didn't collect every single item, I could, I just did enough to get the things I wanted and moved on. Same goes for Saints Row, Baldur's gate 2, Just Cause 2, Skyrim, Fallout 3 etc.
Also....not everyone has to kill a Dragon to justify putting them in a game, just enough people. Not everyone plays Elves or Quanri but they're in the game because they are popular enough to justify the expenditure of resources, and the same more than applies here.
Honestly at this point you're grasping at straws, trying to find some way make your own beliefs a reality. It's like in the USA a few years back when people were demanding President Obama produce a birth certificate in their desperate attempt to prove he was not an American and thus couldn't be President. Instead of focusing on ways to improve the country, or have a debate about real issues they focused on a birth certificate, and even when he showed he had one some still claimed it to be a forgery. That's where you are right now, desperately trying to find a way to force this data to prove your beliefs are reality.
If you dislike the game, fine, you can stay on the forum and argue for changes to future products, or leave since Bioware is currently not producing content you like. Trying to prove this game is a 'Financial Flop' is a waste of time and is a conversation I personally will no longer take part in.
Nothing I'm seeing there indicates a marketing strategy of particularly huge expense, unless you know differently?
Agreed, I was genuinely surprised at how restrained the marketing for this game was. They didn't try to flood us with CGI/Live action commercials like Destiny or Call of Duty...they just put up a couple of trailers and allowed a bunch of youtubers to play the game on camera for their audience. Apparently it worked, and hopefully that will continue to be Bioware's marketing strategy, more bang for less buck.
Between Bioware's marketing, lack DLC characters and Ninja Theory's attempt to do Triple A quality game on a budget I'm feeling better about the direction of gaming. Ubisoft has been soundly smacked upside the head for their recent failures, people are yelling at Bungie about their lack of a meaningful story, and DLC intolerance is on the rise. The future should prove interesting.
Yeah, marketing actually did it's job well. They suckered PC users into actually thinking the game was "For PC users, by PC users". They got me on that one.
dlux math proves one of two things, both against the game:
1. It sold a small number of copies, somewhere between 2~3 million
2. It sold a lot of copies but it is so much made for retarded console brainless teenagers that average hours would be like 20 and less than one dragon killed by game sold, in a game where completionist save takes around 120 hours and have 10 dragons
Either sales went bad or public they are after, the public that bought the game, are not hardcore fans, since I can't imagine a hardcore fan playing only 30 hours and skipping 9 out of 10 dragons =)
There are people I know who played 800 hours. A lot of people in this forum report hundreds of hours. So it is safe to say that if there are people playing this much there are a lot of people not playing at all.
But hey, who needs to think about numbers right?
Right. There's no reason to think that DAI will have any better completion rate than DAO did. I'd expect it to end up a bit below DAO's 36%, actually, given the size.Hey, aren't PS4 achievement percentages a matter of public record? I thought I heard that once.
dlux math proves one of two things, both against the game:
1. It sold a small number of copies, somewhere between 2~3 million
2. It sold a lot of copies but it is so much made for retarded console brainless teenagers that average hours would be like 20 and less than one dragon killed by game sold, in a game where completionist save takes around 120 hours and have 10 dragons
Either sales went bad or public they are after, the public that bought the game, are not hardcore fans, since I can't imagine a hardcore fan playing only 30 hours and skipping 9 out of 10 dragons =)
There are people I know who played 800 hours. A lot of people in this forum report hundreds of hours. So it is safe to say that if there are people playing this much there are a lot of people not playing at all.
But hey, who needs to think about numbers right?
Dlux's 'maths' doesn't prove anything. I'm a hardcore fan, I've only killed 4/10 dragons, and at most I'll bother with one more on this playthrough. I'll also have playthroughs where I skip much of the side content in order to just do the different bits I want to try. I'm sure I'm not the only one.
Very few people are completionists. According to this article the completion rate of Dragon Age Origins was 36%. So what? Does that mean Origins was crap/its sales were bad? There are always people who do speedruns, there are always people who play any game and then stop because they don't like it, there are people who no doubt haven't played at all yet because they're still working through another game, even though they own DAI. There are also people who play offline and don't upload data to EA. Trying to guess overall sales based on the tiny number of people here who will play for hundreds of hours is about as useful as your 'retarded console brainless teenagers' comment ie not very useful at all.
Also, you think 3 million is a small number of copies for a Bioware RPG in 2 months? In three months Origins shipped 3.2 million copies. Again, are you saying that Origins sold poorly?
Which is the main reason why complex tactical programming has completely disappeared.......probably.
Party tactical programming was likely not already in Frostbite 3 as it was not needed for shooter games
so further tactical developments may well come in time ....... probably.
(both of our statements are guesses from our perspective.)
Dlux's 'maths' doesn't prove anything. I'm a hardcore fan, I've only killed 4/10 dragons, and at most I'll bother with one more on this playthrough. I'll also have playthroughs where I skip much of the side content in order to just do the different bits I want to try. I'm sure I'm not the only one.
Very few people are completionists. According to this article the completion rate of Dragon Age Origins was 36%. So what? Does that mean Origins was crap/its sales were bad? There are always people who do speedruns, there are always people who play any game and then stop because they don't like it, there are people who no doubt haven't played at all yet because they're still working through another game, even though they own DAI. There are also people who play offline and don't upload data to EA. Trying to guess overall sales based on the tiny number of people here who will play for hundreds of hours is about as useful as your 'retarded console brainless teenagers' comment ie not very useful at all.
Also, you think 3 million is a small number of copies for a Bioware RPG in 2 months? In three months Origins shipped 3.2 million copies. Again, are you saying that Origins sold poorly?
Origins was not all about sales, it was the start of Bioware corruption, they destroyed most of their legacy there. But who cares? I still loved the game. But they already excluded most of what made their games interesting for me. It took me one year to adapt to that bullshit. I lowered my standards and it worked.
Inquisition is just the point where my whole "lowering standards" breaks. Until DA2 it worked. But when I go play D&D games from Bioware and Obsidian seeing that much classes, the stat points ( 
), feats, everything, I just can't take it (this Inquisition simplification) anymore.
But well, what the hell, we were talking about sales right? Yeah, as I said Origins was the start, Inquisition is the peak of wanting to sell. That's why all this mockery, they completely destroyed RPG to sell and didn't sell all that much. This is funny. You make a game for retardeds and even the retardeds don't want it because there are better retarded games. They should perhaps start making games for people with brain again, less budget more profit.
They got rid of all the interesting complex features of the franchise to expand their fanbase (more like get rid of half and introduce new ones) and it absolutely seems like a failure since most of the old fans bought the game and a lot of them felt betrayed (like myself). These sales came from marketing, as they lost a lot of people with DA2 now they lose again with DAI... but for what? If DAI sold thrice the amount DAO sold, I would be totally ok with that, going retarded to get money, but with such small improvement betraying everything they were seems like a huge price. Well, people who mattered are not there anymore anyway...
Origins was not all about sales, it was the start of Bioware corruption, they destroyed most of their legacy there. But who cares? I still loved the game. But they already excluded most of what made their games interesting for me. It took me one year to adapt to that bullshit. I lowered my standards and it worked.
Inquisition is just the point where my whole "lowering standards" breaks. Until DA2 it worked. But when I go play D&D games from Bioware and Obsidian seeing that much classes, the stat points (
But well, what the hell, we were talking about sales right? Yeah, as I said Origins was the start, Inquisition is the peak of wanting to sell. That's why all this mockery, they completely destroyed RPG to sell and didn't sell all that much. This is funny. You make a game for retardeds and even the retardeds don't want it because there are better retarded games. They should perhaps start making games for people with brain again, less budget more profit.
They got rid of all the interesting complex features of the franchise to expand their fanbase (more like get rid of half and introduce new ones) and it absolutely seems like a failure since most of the old fans bought the game and a lot of them felt betrayed (like myself). These sales came from marketing, as they lost a lot of people with DA2 now they lose again with DAI... but for what? If DAI sold thrice the amount DAO sold, I would be totally ok with that, going retarded to get money, but with such small improvement betraying everything they were seems like a huge price. Well, people who mattered are not there anymore anyway...
If I were you I would cut the insults. There are ways to get your point across without being a jerk.
I think that ship has sailed ...
I think that ship has sailed ...
...I really don't know why I expected everyone to stop arguing about this.
Origins was not all about sales
Erm, yes it was. Every game BioWare have ever made has been about sales, right back to Shattered Steel. They are a game company. Selling games is a thing they do.
Also, have you considered switching to Pillars of Eternity and backing Shadowrun: Hong Kong? Old school CRPGs still get made, just by other companies.
Guest_Lathrim_*
...I really don't know why I expected everyone to stop arguing about this.
I can't say I understand why you'd expect that, either. 
Even if EA release actual numbers, someone is going to say they're made-up to cover the epic failure that Inquisition turned out to be.
Hey, aren't PS4 achievement percentages a matter of public record? I thought I heard that once.
Indeed. According to my trophy list less than 23% of players have obtained the trophy for beating the game. Players get counted once they load up the game for the first time as that's when the trophy list gets loaded to the account, so it doesn't count players who have purchased the game but not started it up at least once.
Erm, yes it was. Every game BioWare have ever made has been about sales, right back to Shattered Steel. They are a game company. Selling games is a thing they do.
Also, have you considered switching to Pillars of Eternity and backing Shadowrun: Hong Kong? Old school CRPGs still get made, just by other companies.
Disagree, that's why the "all". They balanced making good games with sales, BG OBVIOUSLY was not aimed at Diablo success, complete different game. DAI was aimed, adimitedly at Skyrim success. So even by their words it is all about sales now. Even if they were to say the same about Origins it still held on to RPG characteristics that made the masses hate it, like boring combat and silent protagonist, so no, they were not trying to be "the next thing".
Yeah I love those games right. Waiting for pillars, played betas, loved the simple fact that it have stats and they are important in conversations, that alone makes it infinitely better than Inquisition. Shadowrun, well, haven't finished it yet. The bad thing about good games it that you have to pay attention to enjoy them, while in Inquisition I can just do another things while playing the game. I literally work while playing Inquisition,so shallow the game is.
Guest_TrillClinton_*
Disagree, that's why the "all". They balanced making good games with sales, BG OBVIOUSLY was not aimed at Diablo success, complete different game. DAI was aimed, adimitedly at Skyrim success. So even by their words it is all about sales now. Even if they were to say the same about Origins it still held on to RPG characteristics that made the masses hate it, like boring combat and silent protagonist, so no, they were not trying to be "the next thing".
Yeah I love those games right. Waiting for pillars, played betas, loved the simple fact that it have stats and they are important in conversations, that alone makes it infinitely better than Inquisition. Shadowrun, well, haven't finished it yet. The bad thing about good games it that you have to pay attention to enjoy them, while in Inquisition I can just do another things while playing the game. I literally work while playing Inquisition,so shallow the game is.
Retour en haut