Am I reading this right? DAI sold the most on the PS4?
How ironic that it was PS4 (and previous generation consoles) that got the shaft with the delayed release of the JoH DLC, when they end up being the biggest reason for DAI's solid sales totals.
I don't think the VGChartz numbers are too far off as far as proportion, except that they do surely understate PC
Am I reading this right? DAI sold the most on the PS4?
How ironic that it was PS4 (and previous generation consoles) that got the shaft with the delayed release of the JoH DLC, when they end up being the biggest reason for DAI's solid sales totals.
I don't think the VGChartz numbers are too far off as far as proportion, except that they do surely understate PC
I'm well aware that it's investor fraud to lie to shareholders. What made you think I was saying anyone was lying?
I'll caveat that by saying EA repeatedly said most successful LAUNCH. Which is an odd word to keep using. That could mean the most pre-orders, for all we know. Dragon Age hit 2 million very quickly based mostly off pre-orders, but was followed by low sales charting on industry-respected reports. Could "most successful launch" mean "best sales Day One" while conventiently ignoring a sharp decline in sales after that?
We don't know (and have no way of knowing). So it's not worth speculating about - EA said they did well and have done so on the record, so we can take that on face value.
Honestly that's the thing that struck me most, the most successful "launch," instead of just telling actual numbers usually means something's up.
It seems to me it was a rather expensive game when you add in marketing and all the dozens of things together, which tells me even if it sold a lot they were hesitant to just say it was a blaring success.
To be honest I was always rather impressed with how DA2 sold as much as it did when it seemed like such a smaller game in scope and scale, Origins I just thought was a solid game but took a ton of energy to make as well I think.
In other words in terms of effort/reward I don't know if DA:I is especially high, above average probably but not a smashing Minecraft-esque sort of thing.
TW3 is an unabashed success though and I wouldn't be totally shocked if it hit 7 million or something lifetime.
Ultimately I don't know how much I care one way or another about DA4 because the walls around Bioware are miles high and it means they will mostly likely be producing small iterations on the same theme rather than introducing anything dramatically new.
Dragon Age 2 was unique in that it encapsulated certain things that weren't always made overt in perhaps some earlier Bioware games, but I don't think they'll ever truly mesh together those aspects with the ones in Origins necessarily any more successfully than they did in Inquisition, which would mean they kind of need more outside opinion and effort and they're not probably going to get it really. They have a rather entrenched sense of what something should like it and it's not really going to change.
It's a far cry perhaps from the goofy origins of the company, everything always just feels a bit sour to me these days I guess, wish they would be willing to invoke a new spirit of creativity and passion.
Honestly that's the thing that struck me most, the most successful "launch," instead of just telling actual numbers usually means something's up.
It seems to me it was a rather expensive game when you add in marketing and all the dozens of things together, which tells me even if it sold a lot they were hesitant to just say it was a blaring success.
To be honest I was always rather impressed with how DA2 sold as much as it did when it seemed like such a smaller game in scope and scale, Origins I just thought was a solid game but took a ton of energy to make as well I think.
In other words in terms of effort/reward I don't know if DA:I is especially high, above average probably but not a smashing Minecraft-esque sort of thing.
TW3 is an unabashed success though and I wouldn't be totally shocked if it hit 7 million or something lifetime.
Ultimately I don't know how much I care one way or another about DA4 because the walls around Bioware are miles high and it means they will mostly likely be producing small iterations on the same theme rather than introducing anything dramatically new.
Dragon Age 2 was unique in that it encapsulated certain things that weren't always made overt in perhaps some earlier Bioware games, but I don't think they'll ever truly mesh together those aspects with the ones in Origins necessarily any more successfully than they did in Inquisition, which would mean they kind of need more outside opinion and effort and they're not probably going to get it really. They have a rather entrenched sense of what something should like it and it's not really going to change.
It's a far cry perhaps from the goofy origins of the company, everything always just feels a bit sour to me these days I guess, wish they would be willing to invoke a new spirit of creativity and passion.
Hmm... the standard knock on Bio is that they're changing their formula too much, isn't it?
They're really not changing their core principles or beliefs game to game much at all these days. It was more fluid some years ago but now not so much.
Plus whenever they try to change things they aren't necessarily doing it very well, which I don't think counts as "changing their formula," if you don't get the new formula correctly calibrated.
Dragon Age Inquisition wasn't Skyrim, really, much at all, behind the surface level similarities.
These are VGChartz numbers, which don't use any digital downloads. Both PC and XB1 had the ability to distribute the game digitally, so it isn't clear if PS4 (which only physical sales) sold the most or the least.
Hmm... the standard knock on Bio is that they're changing their formula too much, isn't it?
I've never quite understood what "formula" that is supposed to really be, since they've radically changed their design in about every single series they've done. The only thing that made ME and DA notable is that, as the first true sequels Bioware did since BG2 (where they also radically changed their style) they did it within a series rather than between a series.
Just admit it Bioware defence force, Inquisition is a failure. EA is trying to cover that up by saying "most successfull launch in Bioware history" instead of giving actual numbers because the actual numbers are very low. I'm sure the game launched very successfully but the overall sales are below expectations. The Witcher 3 absolutely crushed DAI despite being a less known franchise. This is because Bioware didn't give us a proper sequel to Dragon Age Origins. Dragon Age had so much more potential. I'm afraid DA4 will be much worse. Lets just hope they don't ruin Mass Effect like they ruined Dragon Age.
Just admit it Bioware defence force, Inquisition is a failure. EA is trying to cover that up by saying "most successfull launch in Bioware history" instead of giving actual numbers because the actual numbers are very low. I'm sure the game launched very successfully but the overall sales are below expectations. The Witcher 3 absolutely crushed DAI despite being a less known franchise. This is because Bioware didn't give us a proper sequel to Dragon Age Origins. Dragon Age had so much more potential. I'm afraid DA4 will be much worse. Lets just hope they don't ruin Mass Effect like they ruined Dragon Age.
I kind of love how if you disagree with the other side from the sheer fact that the other sides has no evidence for their claim, you are Bioware defence force.
Seriously, DAI is by far my least favorite DA game. I think it is a good game, but I also consider ultimately rather unremarkable. Now how does my opinion of it affect its sales? It doesn't. Just like the fact that you clamor for a different kind of game has zero impact on those sales. The whole argument here of the DAI beign a failure relies on the fact that EA doesn't publicly release the sales, which it doesn't do for any of its games, and that they are lying in their investor statements, which would mean really, really, really bad legal things for them.
I do not honestly understand this deep seated need for DAI to have been a failure. If you didn't like it, just don't buy the future games. At the moment, I probably won't preorder DA4, which is my right as a customer and again will have very negligable effects on the sales.
Just admit it Bioware defence force, Inquisition is a failure.
I might also add if sales were below expectations there wouldn't be anymore DA games after Inquisition
snip
I was just saying the information at hand isn't accurate because NPD and VGChartz massage the numbers to try and make a guess to copies sold.
<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>
Agreed.
However, the compnanies themselves use sales numbers as marketing tools to give their intended audience a reason why their game is better than a competitor's. Also, EA themselves quote, in their Qtrly financial reports, a HUGE number of DAI playing hours as a gauge for the game's success, even though that number is innacurate. It is innacurate because they count login time as playing time.
I might also add if sales were below expectations there wouldn't be anymore DA games after Inquisition
Guest_john_sheparrd_*
I might also add if sales were below expectations there wouldn't be anymore DA games after Inquisition
There may be corporate justifications for allowing a net loss to go forward (e.g. carrying forward losses for tax purpose) or to keep Bioware employed and on the books as a studio for a future project.
The real sign the game was a success is employee related. None of the DA management team - apart from DG - has been removed or replaced, and this despite DA2. A failing product does not have its entire creative team retained (and DG was retained notwithstanding the fact he moved to another project).
Contrast what happened with DAI with where the creative team for ME3 ended up. Patrick Weekes - whose segments were beloved - is now the Lead Writer on DA. Casey left Bioware (though it seems to be amicable). Mac isn't the lead on ME4.
While I agree with the larger point, I don't think the ME comparison is fair. ME3 was a big financial success, at least from what I've understood, and Casey had already started working as a producer on a different project before he left which seemed, again, by all apperances to have been amicably.
I almost think the larger reason for Weekes taking over as the writer is that ME3 was an of a trilogy, so they might want to have a fresh approach to the new game, while the DA games have never had such a structure to begin with.
There may be corporate justifications for allowing a net loss to go forward (e.g. carrying forward losses for tax purpose) or to keep Bioware employed and on the books as a studio for a future project.
The real sign the game was a success is employee related. None of the DA management team - apart from DG - has been removed or replaced, and this despite DA2. A failing product does not have its entire creative team retained (and DG was retained notwithstanding the fact he moved to another project).
Contrast what happened with DAI with where the creative team for ME3 ended up. Patrick Weekes - whose segments were beloved - is now the Lead Writer on DA. Casey left Bioware (though it seems to be amicable). Mac isn't the lead on ME4.
This is also true
Considering how they ruined DA that might me the smart thing to do
But hey I'm open for surprises, maybe DA4 is awesome
That's the nice thing about opinions. No matter how much people try to beat them in, they'll never really be true.
While I agree with the larger point, I don't think the ME comparison is fair. ME3 was a big financial success, at least from what I've understood, and Casey had already started working as a producer on a different project before he left which seemed, again, by all apperances to have been amicably.
I almost think the larger reason for Weekes taking over as the writer is that ME3 was an of a trilogy, so they might want to have a fresh approach to the new game, while the DA games have never had such a structure to begin with.
I think that - had the ending of ME3 gone differently - you would have seen a very different shake-up in ME3's creative team. I think EA would have tried much harder, for example, to retain Casey. And Mac would have been more heavily pushed toward taking the creative reigns of the series as development shifted to Bioware Montreal. Similarly, I think you wouldn't have seen a promotion for Weekes, who (politically speaking) moved against the grain in terms of how the ME3 team responded to ending criticism.
Considering how they ruined DA that might be the smart thing to do
But hey I'm open for surprises, maybe DA4 is awesome
I think that - had the ending of ME3 gone differently - you would have seen a very different shake-up in ME3's creative team. I think EA would have tried much harder, for example, to retain Casey. And Mac would have been more heavily pushed toward taking the creative reigns of the series as development shifted to Bioware Montreal. Similarly, I think you wouldn't have seen a promotion for Weekes, who (politically speaking) moved against the grain in terms of how the ME3 team responded to ending criticism.
Might be, those are always difficult to comment on with certainty. I am more willing to believe that the reasom for Weekes being pushed over Mac due to the ending, but I don't believe it influenced Casey leaving, at least from the EA point of view, as Casey and his vision was so strong and necessary for the success of the trilogy in total. I do genuinly think that EA did fight to keep him on and would have had him continue on the project if he had stayed.
Having written that, I have nothing against Weekes taking over and his segments were really great in ME3, so I am really enthusiastic in seeing what he will come up with. I guess my larger issue is that we always have a tendency to read such changes through the lens of what we personally thought of the product, which can at times be somewhat unfair to the creators themselves.
Might be, those are always difficult to comment on with certainty. I am more willing to believe that the reasom for Weekes being pushed over Mac due to the ending, but I don't believe it influenced Casey leaving, at least from the EA point of view, as Casey and his vision was so strong and necessary for the success of the trilogy in total. I do genuinly think that EA did fight to keep him on and would have had him continue on the project if he had stayed.
Having written that, I have nothing against Weekes taking over and his segments were really great in ME3, so I am really enthusiastic in seeing what he will come up with. I guess my larger issue is that we always have a tendency to read such changes through the lens of what we personally thought of the product, which can at times be somewhat unfair to the creators themselves.
Note, I am not using ME3's ending to undermine the idea that the series was financially successful. My point was that where a company is unsatisfied with the direction of a series, you see changes in the creative team. And with ME3, we saw the architects of the ending, which was much maligned, find themselves in very different roles in the future development of the production.
As to Casey personally, I think the credit he receives is absolutely out of proportion to his contribution to that series. For one, Mac himself is a wonderful character writer (despite his plotting issues) and was heavily involved in creating one of the most memorable characters in the series, as was Weekes. But more than that, othe writiers like L'Etoile where central in creating the actual universe and vision for the series that came out in ME1, including with some of the more beloved elements in the lore.
You're right to point out that it's speculation to discuss how and whether Casey was retained; but I think if there was a strong movement to keep him with EA, there were enough products (and money) for EA to put the right compensation package in front of him if it wanted to retain his talents. That he left, IMO, is a sign that that the desire to keep him on wasn't particularly strong.
Retour en haut
