Around half that I think, and with better reviews too.
Close. I think ME3 was around 6 mil, and last I saw, Origins was at around 5 million. I'm assuming these don't include digital.
Given how poorly received DA2 was by the gaming community at large and then ME3's ending, three fact that DAI has pushed approx 2 mil physical in three weeks is amazing. 2 poorly received releases in a row usually close studios.
I really don't understand why people are bitching so much about this thread, I think it's interesting regardless of the results.
Anyway its kinda sad no to see DA:I in the top 25, especially seeing as it won GOTY.
It's doing fine.
Also seeing some interesting numbers so I'll just leave this here
http://www.vgchartz....name=Dragon Age
http://www.vgchartz....s=0&results=200
http://www.vgchartz....s=0&results=200
Close. I think ME3 was around 6 mil, and last I saw, Origins was at around 5 million. I'm assuming these don't include digital.
Given how poorly received DA2 was by the gaming community at large and then ME3's ending, three fact that DAI has pushed approx 2 mil physical in three weeks is amazing. 2 poorly received releases in a row usually close studios.
I've never seen anything which suggests it was anything like as high as 6m. The EA announcement of $200m retail sales a couple months after release would imply ~3m sales, and they're unlikely to have been selling too many beyond that point.
Bioware was never in danger of closing and won't be for the foreseeable future (and only ever can be shut down if EA decides to pull the plug). A bit of shine has come off the brand and they might not be top in their class anymore, but they're miles from being in any danger of being shut down. ME3 & DA2 might have been bad by Bioware's standards but they weren't that bad (both will at least have broken even for sure). You're right that they probably did hamper early sales of Inquisition to some extent though.
I've never seen anything which suggests it was anything like as high as 6m. The EA announcement of $200m retail sales a couple months after release would imply ~3m sales, and they're unlikely to have been selling too many beyond that point.
Bioware was never in danger of closing and won't be for the foreseeable future (and only ever can be shut down if EA decides to pull the plug). A bit of shine has come off the brand and they might not be top in their class anymore, but they're miles from being in any danger of being shut down. ME3 & DA2 might have been bad by Bioware's standards but they weren't that bad (both will at least have broken even for sure). You're right that they probably did hamper early sales of Inquisition to some extent though.
Those were lifetime totals I saw, but first three months, totally believe only 3 mil sold of me3.
I enjoyed both ME3 and DA2 despite their flaws (and even then, I didn't have much of a problem with ME3 ending as much as some of the plot holes they left throughout the game - the trilogy is easily my favorite game series). Both were much stronger in writing than their predecessors. This is where BioWare sets itself apart in that even their worst writing is better than Bethesda's best writing (in that i know middle schoolers who write better stories than Skyrim had). This is also the sane thing that limits their sales to under 10mil (well, that and no sustained series over at least ten years).
You and I seem to have some agreement.
Comparing bethesda to Bioware is like comparing apples to oranges.
In skyrim the plot/storyline isn't the main focus , you are ment to go out and explore. In DA I the storyline is the main focus.
Also skyrim's main selling point is the modding its just one big canvass and thats what bethesda wanted.
If both weren't RPG studios, I would agree with you on comparing them. However, both are studios that exclusively produce RPG games. The comparison is valid, even if the studios focus on different things to drive the game (story vs exploration).Comparing bethesda to Bioware is like comparing apples to oranges.
In skyrim the plot/storyline isn't the main focus , you are ment to go out and explore. In DA I the storyline is the main focus.
Also skyrim's main selling point is the modding its just one big canvass and thats what bethesda wanted.
If both weren't RPG studios, I would agree with you on comparing them. However, both are studios that exclusively produce RPG games. The comparison is valid, even if the studios focus on different things to drive the game (story vs exploration).
Now, comparing BioWare to, say, Treyarch, Volition, or Rockstar...that's an apples/oranges discussion.
But their RPG's are so vastly different from eachother. They are practically a different genre in a weird way. Yes both create RPG's, but very very different ones.
But their RPG's are so vastly different from eachother. They are practically a different genre in a weird way. Yes both create RPG's, but very very different ones.
True. The bigger threat to RPG's may actually come from the publishing houses, at least on the medieval style ones like DA, TES, and TW. There's going to be a minimum hardcore RPG base of, I'm guessing, 2 million or so, that will ALWAYS buy all of these games, provided reviews are decent. The problem comes in when the publishing house locks around and sees game V did 9758975 million and then forces their studio to copy elements of game V and game W.
In reality, all the publisher really had to do was allow the studio to focus on their strength while making combat engaging to a wider audience because there are enough hardcore RPG played that a decent product will likely cause the project to at least break even. In this case, I think DAI got pretty close, but given the scope of the world, I would really have liked to see some of these sidequest arcs be lengthened and developed more than they were. That being said, at some point I'm sure they had to have a deadline in terms of what the was actually time to program.
BioWare relies heavily on story and character development. If they focus on that, they'll be fine. No one else products a story driven RPG. Unless EA puts a DA release in the same quarter as TES or TW, they really aren't competing with each other. ME is still, I think, their flagship franchise. No one else has an RPG quite that unique (space scifi that's also got cross genre appeal to shooter gamers).
1. What is your point/goal OP?
2. Most people have horrible taste. Just look at popular music.
3. DA:I is going to sell more copies in the long run than many of those titles up there on that list.
4. DA:I is better than all of those games combined.
5. DA:I is better than all of those games combined.
6. DA:I is better than all of those games combined.
7. Most people have horrible taste. Again, music.
I don't know if it's really doing badly, but I must say plenty of people (such as me) had (have) plenty of legitimate complaints about DA:I on any number of different dimensions, from their storytelling ability to game play design (and as compared to other available games). It's not fair to say everyone who doesn't buy it must be a hater or in bad taste.
Obviously though this being the official Bioware forum... anyway. .
My own impression of DA:I was that it didn't fit either great storytelling or great gameplay. Most Japanese games and anime have more interesting characters and less (or non-existent) gameplay systems. Most hardcore western games like LoL or CoD have more absorbing gameplay systems IMO.
I feel like DA:O carved out an identity as doing both at least decently well.. but DA:I struck me as much tamer and more by the numbers on both dimensions and without that kind of identity in the middle I feel like they were a bit between the two poles. If you want an interesting game play Advanced Warfare or LoL, if you want a cool character play FF. I feel like DA:I doesn't have an obvious spot in this back and forth.. Or rather the identity of doing both decently well was somewhat lost after Origins.
...but anyway maybe it's selling fine or something, I just wanted to address the notion that the game must be flawless and anyone who criticizes or doesn't buy it has no idea what they're doing.
The game is not flawless but it's better than any of those other games on that list. It's the best game of the year by miles.
If you want an interesting game play Advanced Warfare or LoL, if you want a cool character play FF.
Personally I would rather spend 500 hours running in circles in the Hinterlands with the Inquisitor than play one. more. freaking. hour. as Lightning. 
Personally I would rather spend 500 hours running in circles in the Hinterlands with the Inquisitor than play one. more. freaking. hour. as Lightning.
I used to like Lightning, but after chatting on the FFXIV forums ugh... All the girl characters with her hair made me hate her. I've always liked the strong female characters though.
Cass in DAI, another good strong female. Like her a lot but really dislike her as a romance option for males. Not because of her personality or beliefs or anything like that, but because at some point in her templar/seeker training she decided her face was the best thing she could use to stop sharp bladed weapons. Give Cass her DA2 face and she'd be perfect.
Personally I would rather spend 500 hours running in circles in the Hinterlands with the Inquisitor than play one. more. freaking. hour. as Lightning.
And yet to pretend because you hold the opinion that everyone else must be wrong and you are the only one that is right is somewhat fallacious yes? That's the only thing I am saying probably isn't the best idea if faced with contrary evidence.
The game is not flawless but it's better than any of those other games on that list. It's the best game of the year by miles.
And yet DA:I must explain the gap. If I was to say (and kind of believe) that Omega Ruby is a better game than DA:I, it also accords with actual evidence.
At any rate, I'm really not here to rag, but asserting people don't grasp it's (relative then) flawlessness out of their inability again seems not very sensible when there are literally hundreds of legitimate complaints I can see made about DA:I.
Explain the gap? Why? Is Bioware being accused of something they have to defend themselves against?
There are plenty of reasons as to why the sales numbers look as they do, none of them necessarily have to revolve around the percieved quality of DA:I.
Claiming that one video game is better at being a video game than another video game is rather silly, except in the extreme cases where a product is just objectively broken or otherwise of poor quality.
Is a football simulater a better video game than an adventure game?
The game is not flawless but it's better than any of those other games on that list. It's the best game of the year by miles.
Easily my top 3 games of the year. I wouldn't say it's better by miles, but certainly a fantastic game that deserves better sales.
Ok guys I guess I just have to spell this out:
Everything I say is just my opinion. I don't determine reality for all of the world.
When I say DA:I is the best game of the year by miles I mean it and it's true because it is an opinionated statement that doesn't have, and is not supposed to have, some kind of objective analysis attached to it.
Explain the gap? Why? Is Bioware being accused of something they have to defend themselves against?
There are plenty of reasons as to why the sales numbers look as they do, none of them necessarily have to revolve around the percieved quality of DA:I.
Claiming that one video game is better at being a video game than another video game is rather silly, except in the extreme cases where a product is just objectively broken or otherwise of poor quality.
Is a football simulater a better video game than an adventure game?
No they don't have to do anything, neither does anyone here, but they volunteered to explain the gap by saying people are dumb and inferior and can't grasp the greatness of DA:I, rather than going after problems with DA:I.
I was just saying, well, or maybe not. The reasons don't necessarily have to revolve around the perceived quality of DA:I, and yet they don't necessarily not have to revolve around the perceived quality of DA:I (as I sort of see it).
BSN is so hilariously bad at sales threads because they can't get over the fact that their taste doesn't reflect sales.
4.5-5 mill units within a year in black at around 2.5 mill it's really not that hard.
And lol at the save the ending people still in denial that ME3 went on to sell great. Those figures have been pulled off of earnings statements by this point, EA is a publicly traded company.
No they don't have to do anything, neither does anyone here, but they volunteered to explain the gap by saying people are dumb and inferior and can't grasp the greatness of DA:I, rather than going after problems with DA:I.
I was just saying, well, or maybe not. The reasons don't necessarily have to revolve around the perceived quality of DA:I, and yet they don't necessarily not have to revolve around the perceived quality of DA:I (my opinion)
As opposed to you claiming that they claim that those whom dislike DA:I are what you wrote, which I am rather certain they probably didn't write? I have either ignored or offered rebuttals against anyone who has tried to infer the same thing when I've posted critiscm against DA:I. However, I am not going to take sides in the whole love/hate forum battle going on.
It would be ever so nice if both groups of people could just stop being pretentious towards each other and focus on being constructive.
Double negatives can be rather confusing...
It's important to discern the difference between quality and deliberate design descision on the part of the developers.
Yes the quality of a product, or the percieved state which can be spread through word of mouth or social media, most certainly can and will affect sales. However I highly doubt this is the case, when it comes to DA:I, for any other platform than the PC. Especially since reviews have been favorable and the title was named game of the year. How exactly would people have known about the flaws that the game does indeed have, and design choices that many don't like, until they've played it themselves? I doubt most of those whom play video games are very active on forums and such, in an attempt to inform themselves before a purchase.
Few reviews, that I've seen, have touched on these issues, besides some of the main common gripes like Hinterlands, and I doubt word of mouth of the many issues of the game have either traveled so far or have had such an impact as to affect sales to any significant degree, except perhaps for PC owners. The game also hasn't been out for very long, I might add. Further limiting the impact that word of mouth etc. could have had on the sales so far. Rome 2 sold very well despite being in a near broken, if not completely so, state at and well after launch.
Using your example from before... Making the argument that a Pokemon title on the 3DS has sold more units because it's a better game than DA:I is an entirely silly argument to make. Selling a lot of units does not a "good" video game make. And again what makes one video game better at being a video game than another video game. People are going to have to be more precise in this regard.
Lastly I have issues with the game and the design descisions that Bioware made, however I won't start using sales charts in a fallacious manner just to try and prove to myself and others that DA:I is suffering because of said issues. Or as the real diehard "haters" might claim; because it's a horrible title. If I have issues with something then it doesn't matter how succesful it is. Of course if we take examples such as Daikatana then the poor state of the game wasn't so much a matter of opinion as it was factual. The limited sales simply served to illustrate the point.
I don't think there's much of a love/hate war. It's more of a like/dislike war at this point. hee hee 
But on topic, the game has its flaws. I still believe it could/deserved to sell more than it has, early or not.
Easily my top 3 games of the year. I wouldn't say it's better by miles, but certainly a fantastic game that deserves better sales.
Except we have no sales data. What we do have is statements from BW that the game is selling better than DAO and DA2 in a similar timeframe. Given the reception of DA2 I don't see how they could expect better than that.
It's doing fine.
Also seeing some interesting numbers so I'll just leave this here
http://www.vgchartz....name=Dragon Age
http://www.vgchartz....s=0&results=200
http://www.vgchartz....s=0&results=200
Well, if it helps the OP, of all the games listed, the only game I purchased was DAI for myself, and a copy of DAI as a gift for a friends teen ager.
None of the other games even look interesting to me.
I really don't understand why people are bitching so much about this thread, I think it's interesting regardless of the results.
Anyway its kinda sad no to see DA:I in the top 25, especially seeing as it won GOTY.
Because, as has been said countless times in this thread as well as the 3 others that preceded it: These charts are not indicative of DAIs success. EA has yet to release PC and Digital Download sales numbers, so sites like these cannot accurately report how well DAI is doing in the slightest.
Retour en haut