http://n4g.com/news/...one-x360-ps3-pc
Not sure how accurate this is, but according to the link above:
"The game managed to sell 1,136,285 units worldwide in its first week, for the week ending November 22, 2014. This comes after the news that the game sold 560,156 units in its first week in the US."
If this is true then I stand corrected on ME3 initially selling better than DAI.http://n4g.com/news/...one-x360-ps3-pc
Not sure how accurate this is, but according to the link above:
"The game managed to sell 1,136,285 units worldwide in its first week, for the week ending November 22, 2014. This comes after the news that the game sold 560,156 units in its first week in the US."
Another article from Forbes:
http://www.forbes.co...ir-stock-price/
Excellent article. Thanks for finding it.
See, I don't like the armchair analysis Forbes is doing here.
Paul Tassi is a forbes blogger (not journalist) who is well known amongst mmo gamers for passing himself off as some kind of gaming industry expert when his articles are frequently poorly researched and are really just completely subjective opinion pieces.
Paul Tassi is a forbes blogger (not journalist) who is well known amongst mmo gamers for passing himself off as some kind of gaming industry expert when his articles are frequently poorly researched and are really just completely subjective opinion pieces.
That maybe true but does that change the numbers?
"The financial side of EA’s comeback is somewhat mindblowing to anyone who has been following it. In addition to these billion dollar increases, EA’s shares have risen by 105% over the past 12 months, making it one of the best performing stocks of the year. If you told me last year as the Dungeon Keeper mess was unfolding that the best way to double your money in the market was to invest in EA, I would have laughed at you, but it’s EA who’s laughing now."
Do you need a journalist for this article or should it be written by a financial expert? I truly do not know. Having said that if their shares have risen 105% over 12 month who cares? Sounds pretty hot to me.
Using game sales to prove the success of a game is a joke especially at the beginning of a new generation of gaming. There's only like a couple rpgs out for next gen systems and a good portion of us players were going to buy DAI to try it out regardless of reviews just so we had something to play. I'm not saying DAI was or wasn't successful, but using sales figures to decide is ridiculous. The player's opinion of the game is what gauges success. There are lots of terrible games out there that sold well.
Using game sales to prove the success of a game is a joke especially at the beginning of a new generation of gaming. There's only like a couple rpgs out for next gen systems and a good portion of us players were going to buy DAI to try it out regardless of reviews just so we had something to play. I'm not saying DAI was or wasn't successful, but using sales figures to decide is ridiculous. The player's opinion of the game is what gauges success. There are lots of terrible games out there that sold well.
Sure, but unfortunately, that's the way the industry works when it comes to music, movies, and video games. If a game or movie is really well liked and has critical success but bombs or is a flop, chances are slim for a sequel or similar game or movie from that company. Same goes with music. There are probably quite a few bands or musicians that are really good and have small dedicated fan base but since they don't sell well enough they get dropped from their record labels.
Using game sales to prove the success of a game is a joke especially at the beginning of a new generation of gaming. There's only like a couple rpgs out for next gen systems and a good portion of us players were going to buy DAI to try it out regardless of reviews just so we had something to play. I'm not saying DAI was or wasn't successful, but using sales figures to decide is ridiculous. The player's opinion of the game is what gauges success. There are lots of terrible games out there that sold well.
Wise words.
Now all players have different wants. Not all of them are going to agree that they like the same game. It is always a good idea to ask a friend if they like a game before buying it.
The stocks going up is more about the company's ability to make a profit.
If this is true then I stand corrected on ME3 initially selling better than DAI.
But then again, ME3 sold 890,000 the first day in NA alone. Nothing was released about its total first week sales which would obviously be more.
Also on the PS3 and X360 combined, ME3 sold ~1.18 million worldwide its first month and that is excluding PC sales.
Either way, nice find.
United States physical sales alone for ME3 were 1.3 million.
Sure, but unfortunately, that's the way the industry works when it comes to music, movies, and video games. If a game or movie is really well liked and has critical success but bombs or is a flop, chances are slim for a sequel or similar game or movie from that company. Same goes with music. There are probably quite a few bands or musicians that are really good and have small dedicated fan base but since they don't sell well enough they get dropped from their record labels.
I understand. It just seems like people in this thread are arguing over two different types of success and there is a massive difference between financial success and creative success.
Using game sales to prove the success of a game is a joke especially at the beginning of a new generation of gaming. There's only like a couple rpgs out for next gen systems and a good portion of us players were going to buy DAI to try it out regardless of reviews just so we had something to play. I'm not saying DAI was or wasn't successful, but using sales figures to decide is ridiculous. The player's opinion of the game is what gauges success. There are lots of terrible games out there that sold well.
And that is the point I was initially trying to make before I got side tracked. Many games sells well but has some negative feedback and many games sells poorly but gets positive feedback. In the end, if we aren't going to look at sales figures, then we will really just have to wait til the initial information for Dragon Age 4 comes to light. Right now there seems to be a population of DAI owners who are not satisfied with the fetch quest, boring/no personality protagonist, light on cut-scenes outside of main quest, main story being a small ratio of total gameplay etc etc etc. With that being said and given Bioware's past actions, I doubt Bioware would simply ignore over these concerns and I fully expect them to be addressed in some way or another in Dragon Age 4.
The reason why I am so vocal is because I want to ensure that the future of Dragon Age games and the future of Bioware games in general DOES NOT look to DAI as a formula for future games. That is why many people like myself remain vocal regarding our dislikes of DAI in hopes that Bioware does not repeat them with Mass Effect 4, Dragon Age 4, or the new IP.
Take Mass Effect 3 as an example. People hated how multiplayer was initially an essential part of getting the better ending in the main story. So that is why with DAI, we see a multiplayer that is 100% independent from that of the main story. Yes, the events that takes place happen during the events of the main game, but playing multiplayer isn't required to reach a certain ending or acheievement in the main story in the same way it was for ME3. Furthermore, it looks like Bioware is looking to Mass Effect 1 for inspiration in terms of how they are developing Mass Effect 4. Again, ME3 was a huge financial success but yet Bioware is taking player feedback seriously and despite the sales, they are looking to avoid many things that happened with ME3. The hope is that Bioware does the same with DAI in that despite its financial success, they do not incorporate many things from DAI into future Bioware titles.
Again, when DA4 information comes around sometime in late 2016 or 2017, we will know then how much attention Bioware gave towards player feedback and we will see then just how popular/unpopular many DAI features were because Bioware would make it clear that they brought back/expanded upon some DAI features cause fans enjoyed them and they disbanded/changed many DAI features cause many fans disliked them.
Only time will tell, but our first indicator would be Mass Effect 4, which was already deep into development before DAI came out, but it is still may have had some DAI features in the game in which they may have kept or disbanded.
I understand. It just seems like people in this thread are arguing over two different types of success and there is a massive difference between financial success and creative success.
I'm sure things will change between DAI and the following Bioware games, Though I doubt there'll be a complete overhaul. The open/semi open world approach will remain. I hope they'll improve on it.And that is the point I was initially trying to make before I got side tracked. Many games sells well but has some negative feedback and many games sells poorly but gets positive feedback. In the end, if we aren't going to look at sales figures, then we will really just have to wait til the initial information for Dragon Age 4 comes to light. Right now there seems to be a population of DAI owners who are not satisfied with the fetch quest, boring/no personality protagonist, main story being a small ratio of total gameplay etc etc etc. With that being said and given Bioware's past actions, I doubt Bioware would simply ignore over these concerns and I fully expect them to be addressed in some way or another in Dragon Age 4.
The reason why I am so vocal is because I want to ensure that the future of Dragon Age games and the future of Bioware games in general DOES NOT look to DAI as a formula for future games. That is why many people like myself remain vocal regarding our dislikes of DAI in hopes that Bioware does not repeat them with Mass Effect 4, Dragon Age 4, or the new IP.
Did EA release numbers for any games in Fiscal Year 2015?
Besides Dragon Age we also had Battlefield Hardline, Sims, FIFA, NHL, and Madden.
Again, when DA4 information comes around sometime in late 2016 or 2017, we will know then how much attention Bioware gave towards player feedback and we will see then just how popular/unpopular many DAI features were because Bioware would make it clear that they brought back/expanded upon some DAI features cause fans enjoyed them and they disbanded/changed many DAI features cause many fans disliked them.
Only time will tell, but our first indicator would be Mass Effect 4, which was already deep into development before DAI came out, but it is still may have had some DAI features in the game in which they may have kept or disbanded.
First of all, ME team has made it clear several times that they are independent of DA team and their design decisions will no tbe influenced by DAI. Thus it would be misleading to say the least to use ME4 as somekind of a sign post for the next DA game.
Second, and this needs to be repeated until infinity, which fans should Bioware be listening to? If you follow these forums, it's clear that there are quite a lot of divided opinions on what would be the best direction. Thus almost always when such claims have been made, it indicates that Bioware should listen to what specific groups of fans should say, as is evident from the rest of your reply.
I've made this point frequently, but people need to understand that it's not sales #s that matters but sales performance vs. expectations. This is what it is like in the movie industry as well. It's not just hitting a particular profit range (though there are general shorthand rules about profit) as much as it is to exceed the goal that was set for the project.
This is why, for example, Kingdoms of Alamur was a flop for the company despite selling a lot of units.
Using game sales to prove the success of a game is a joke especially at the beginning of a new generation of gaming. There's only like a couple rpgs out for next gen systems and a good portion of us players were going to buy DAI to try it out regardless of reviews just so we had something to play. I'm not saying DAI was or wasn't successful, but using sales figures to decide is ridiculous. The player's opinion of the game is what gauges success. There are lots of terrible games out there that sold well.
It may be a terrible game in someone's opinion, but if the game sold well then others thought it was a good enough game for them. One man's trash is another man's treasure.
EA doesn't release numbers anymore (they haven't for some time).Did EA release numbers for any games in Fiscal Year 2015?
Creative success is all well and good, but if financial success (or fails to meet expectations) does not follow then no company is going to greenlight a sequel. That called financial suicide.
I am sure some remember Planescape Torment which was a critical success but barely broke even financially. There was no sequel to PST until now with a kickstarter campaign.
If a game does not give the expected ROI a sequel is not likely.
Creative success is all well and good, but if financial success (or fails to meet expectations) does not follow then no company is going to greenlight a sequel. That called financial suicide.
I am sure some remember Planescape Torment which was a critical success but barely broke even financially. There was no sequel to PST until now with a kickstarter campaign.
If a game does not give the expected ROI a sequel is not likely.
First of all, ME team has made it clear several times that they are independent of DA team and their design decisions will no tbe influenced by DAI. Thus it would be misleading to say the least to use ME4 as somekind of a sign post for the next DA game.
Second, and this needs to be repeated until infinity, which fans should Bioware be listening to? If you follow these forums, it's clear that there are quite a lot of divided opinions on what would be the best direction. Thus almost always when such claims have been made, it indicates that Bioware should listen to what specific groups of fans should say, as is evident from the rest of your reply.
Whenever I see someone asking a developper to ''listen to the fans'', I indeed replace it with ''listen to me'' in my mind, and it almost always works out.
Especially for Bioware that has a widely diversed fanbase. Some people are here for the characters, others for the roleplaying/C&C, some for the pure combat andgameplay, some for the romances, some for the lore, and most players probably favor a combination of several of those factors.
Thus, asking Bioware to listen to the fans is redundant to me. They always do, else they wouldn't sell anything. They just happend listen to the people who wanted a bigger world with more content over, say, those who want a longer main story or more tactical, turn-based combat. And it looks like it's worked for them; no matter what people say about how weak 2014 was as a year, Inquisition was a success both financially and among critics and fan votes. It's thus highly likely that they stick to Inquisition's formula in several ways. Hopefully they will improve some of its failings, giving us better side-quests and a longer, more developped main story.
If one doesn't like the direction of their games? Well, not a thousand ways to go about it. Post your feedback and, if you're concerned, don't pre-order the next game (you should never pre-order games as a rule, but still). But one has to keep in mind Bioware receives feedback from thousands of sources. Not listening to one (or even a few) posters doesn,t mean they don't ''listen to the fans''. Means they don't listen to you.
With DAI, NO numbers what so ever have been released to support a claim that it is the biggest launch for Bioware. This leads me to believe that DAI in no way has sold better than that of Mass Effect 3 which is something that EA may not want to publicly admit to.
EA's attitude toward the consumers with regard to DA:I tells me that they think this has been a huge success. They have ignored a ton of feedback, made only tiny changes (none of which addressed the main complaints) and their comments on Twitter indicate that they have largely moved on. Contrast this with Diablo III, which sold a metric ton of units but was greeted with very negative player reaction. After a reasonable period of telling the players that they didn't know what they were talking about, Blizzard actually canned the game director and changed the game to be a lot more enjoyable. Bioware is not doing anything like that. They think this game is a great success.
It's sad to me when the metrics used by the developer vary from the metrics used by the players. It leads to situations like this in which many players think the game is lacking but the developers view it as a huge success. Extremely frustrating!
On this point people need to remember old Bioware had a hard time paying the bills before EA. Even after KoTOR's success the semi-flop of JE and the costs of producing ME (along with the repeated and unending delays on DAO) led to their being effectively bought up and bundled with Mythic by a fund which eventually flipped them to EA.
I remember Bioware was bundled with Pandemic into VG Holding which was a partnership funded by Elevation Partners.
Retour en haut