78 réponses à ce sujet

[pdusen]

How is it not? In Pokémon Black and Dragon Quest IX I spent like 400 hours, and this are games I played lightly. It is obviously a failure unless you have something else to say it is not it is just nonsense. Can't imagine myself
 playing a game I like for 40 hours. Not even in the first week. Back in 2004 I played 16 hours of Ragnarok a day. This is liking a game.

Anyway, it is not me distorting facts it is them announcing it like it was a lot. DAI is failure, should be called DAF.

 

Are you the new dlux? What will we do with the old one?

[Allan Schumacher]

I wonder how those hours are tracked... If it's through Origin, it's worth noting that it doesn't track any of the hours played in Offline Mode, even if you go back Online later. I imagine most are playing in Online Mode, but like others I started playing offline a while back for stability reasons (so it's missing ~100 hours I've been playing offline).

 

It won't track people that opt out of telemetry either. It's a lower bound number.

 

You know how many people didn't even beat Ostagar in Origins? It's a fairly high percentage.

 

I was just curious and did a peek at Skyrim's steam achievements. I think the prologue is "Unbound?" 14% of people don't have that achievement. 23% didn't get an achievement for level 5.

 

I don't know the data for our game but undoubtedly there's people that haven't played very far for reasons that are their own. They may not have liked it. They may have gotten busy. Something else came along and stole their attention away.  It's pretty common, for better or worse.

 

As for dragons, I think I only killed 4 of them myself. We have to be careful of self-selecting data from our peers and those we interact with since they may not be representative. It's also important to remain open to other interpretations (i.e. people that love the game but don't care for dragon fights, or RP that they don't want to kill them, etc.).

[Etragorn]

Got to love all the people trying to spin the data to make it sound like a failure.

 

Same here. I am getting really sick of it.

[Captain Wiseass]

You know how many people didn't even beat Ostagar in Origins? It's a fairly high percentage.

This 113 million hours stat also ignores time played offline, which EA doesn't track.

Also doesn't count multiplayer.

[devSin]

Speaking of multiplayer, does 310,000 hours sound kind of low to anyone else? Maybe it's just the nature of playing short matches, but given that 113 million hours have been put into single-player already...

[wolfhowwl]

The multiplayer had severe problems that took forever to fix (I think they probably pissed away a large part of their playerbase).

 

It's also just not as fun as ME3's was.

[Lukas Trevelyan]

Honestly I find that multiplayer isn't that great. It's a lot of fun, but the fun doesn't last long and it reaches a point where the only fun to be had is when you play with friends.

[Deebo305]

How is it not? In Pokémon Black and Dragon Quest IX I spent like 400 hours, and this are games I played lightly. It is obviously a failure unless you have something else to say it is not it is just nonsense. Can't imagine myself
playing a game I like for 40 hours. Not even in the first week. Back in 2004 I played 16 hours of Ragnarok a day. This is liking a game.
Anyway, it is not me distorting facts it is them announcing it like it was a lot. DAI is failure, should be called DAF.

Well this full on diarrhea of the mouth

Notice all those "I" in your post, you don't represent the majority. When it comes to gaming especially for Triple A titles they will be purchased but hours put into it is dependent on the player. With franchises those hour diminish with each iteration because your fans grow up with the game meaning less free time to spend on the game

I know a ton of guys who are still running through their 1st playthrough while other may already have 5. You are clearly the latter with plenty of free time to go around but really how is getting that much time put into only SP counting only perhap a Month and half not an accomplishment exactly?

[Biotic Flash Kick]

lol i have 9 playthroughts + 1 bugged one at a total of 

 

60 <-bugged file

 

106 <-first completed file

112 <-group nightmare

35 <-knightmare solo low xp run

77 <- solo nightmare 

63 <- solo nightmare 

82 <- solo nightmare 

42 <- solo nightmare 

67 <- solo nightmare 

120 <- complete heartless monster playthrough 

 

so 764 hours by myself on top of which i've slain 87 dragons by myself 

 

Not impressed in these stats

 

113 million hours?

and that means if you sold 2 million 

some people are quitting early on or in the middle while others get to the 80-90 hour range

[X Equestris]

lol i have 9 playthroughts + 1 bugged one at a total of 
 
60 <-bugged file
 
106 <-first completed file
112 <-group nightmare
35 <-knightmare solo low xp run
77 <- solo nightmare 
63 <- solo nightmare 
82 <- solo nightmare 
42 <- solo nightmare 
67 <- solo nightmare 
120 <- complete heartless monster playthrough 
 
so 764 hours by myself on top of which i've slain 87 dragons by myself 
 
Not impressed in these stats
 
113 million hours?
and that means if you sold 2 million 
some people are quitting early on or in the middle while others get to the 80-90 hour range

A lot of people always quit early. Most of the games I see have completion rates in the 30-40% range. A handful are in the 50s, and those are usually the most popular titles.

[Deebo305]

so 764 hours by myself on top of which i've slain 87 dragons by myself

Not impressed in these stats

113 million hours?
and that means if you sold 2 million
some people are quitting early on or in the middle while others get to the 80-90 hour range

Well umm....I certainly hope you took the time eat and sleep between all that

On my 4th and final playthrough b4 fully diving into MP and other shelved games so I may hit alittle over 430 since each playthrough has been under 110 hrs.

In any case, people should remember the timeframe these numbers represent from the gamw release Nov. 18 to Dec. 30 thats nothing to discount heck alot of game barely make it past 1,00.000 hrs.

[AlanC9]

113 million, lets say 3 million copies sold, less than 40 hours per game... It is less than a DAO playthrough. It is half of my rushed playthrough of 80 hours. Either people are not playing the game or it didn't sell.

Not playing, of course. Or rather, not finishing. That's what happens with games. Only 36% of players finished DAO, for instance. The ME games did better, but they were shorter..

[In Exile]

Not playing, of course. Or rather, not finishing. That's what happens with games. Only 36% of players finished DAO, for instance. The ME games did better, but they were shorter..

The other thing is I think this data only goes to December.

[Quaddis]

I don't understand how is this even a discussion.

If the game sales are as high enough they would say how many copies they sold not how many hours someone spent sidequesting.

[Elhanan]

To try and remain consistent, I prefer to skip past the stats myself, as I contend that numbers can be made to dance in either directions depending on the statistician. But what I find more impressive are the sales numbers reported to shareholders; others versed in such terminology, and they seem to be delighted with the results.

Congrats to Bioware! Well played!

[Unlucky 13]

I play offline 100% of the time in all games, except when downloading DLC or whatnot.  I have to imagine that there are many others like me who do the same thing.  I've put 150 hours into the game in 1.5 playthroughs so far.

[AlanC9]

Are we sure that merely setting Origin offline stops telemetry? My understanding of DAO's data collection was that unless you explicitly opted out of data collection, it would send data back whether or not you logged in.

[Unlucky 13]

Are we sure that merely setting Origin offline stops telemetry? My understanding of DAO's data collection was that unless you explicitly opted out of data collection, it would send data back whether or not you logged in.

 

For PS4 users like myself, its a certainty that data is only collected if you are logged in while playing, correct?

[Fredvdp]

I was just curious and did a peek at Skyrim's steam achievements. I think the prologue is "Unbound?" 14% of people don't have that achievement. 23% didn't get an achievement for level 5.

I wonder if it only tracks achievements of people who played the game, or also of game owners who never played it. I personally haven't played half the games in my Steam library.

[catabuca]

I've put 260+ hours into my first playthrough. Just got to finish up the Hissing Wastes then I'm off to what I assume is right before the end-game. Granted, quite a bit of that time has been spent screenshot hunting (although I didn't start doing that in earnest until at least half way through).

 

I play offline, however (I haven't patched past patch 1 yet) - so my numbers aren't included in any stats. I expect subsequent playthroughs will be pretty lengthy too.

[Yulia]

My longest and current play through is 190 hours after finishing my first play through just to get an idea on the game. Second one is my completionist run. It's a fun game and all, it's really cool to explore and see what's out there.

[o Ventus]

How is it not? In Pokémon Black and Dragon Quest IX I spent like 400 hours, and this are games I played lightly. It is obviously a failure unless you have something else to say it is not it is just nonsense. Can't imagine myself
 playing a game I like for 40 hours. Not even in the first week. Back in 2004 I played 16 hours of Ragnarok a day. This is liking a game.

Anyway, it is not me distorting facts it is them announcing it like it was a lot. DAI is failure, should be called DAF.

 

Or maybe instead of making bizarre, completely nonsensical complaints, you can think critically and consider other reasons why that number may be "low" (it's not).

[Sylvius the Mad]

I don't understand how is this even a discussion.
If the game sales are as high enough they would say how many copies they sold not how many hours someone spent sidequesting.

Why would they say that?

[katokires]

Or maybe instead of making bizarre, completely nonsensical complaints, you can think critically and consider other reasons why that number may be "low" (it's not).

Or maybe do what I want... oops I already do. See my posts? Not asking your advice or permission. Don't cry, please.

Game for people who can't create a proper stat build is not a game is useless mater in the universe. It exists in a parallel dimension where it makes sense because people have no brains there, assigning points to strength or cunning makes their heads hurt too much.

[Phoe77]

Or maybe do what I want... oops I already do. See my posts? Not asking your advice or permission. Don't cry, please.

Game for people who can't create a proper stat build is not a game is useless mater in the universe. It exists in a parallel dimension where it makes sense because people have no brains there, assigning points to strength or cunning makes their heads hurt too much.

 

Well given how flawlessly you've conveyed your point in this post, I can't see how anyone could ever disagree with you.  

 

Regardless of how special you feel when you undertake the mental rigors of assigning your points between six attributes, it doesn't actually make you any better than anyone else.