949 réponses à ce sujet

[Sanunes]

                                                                                         <<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>

 

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.

 

There is nothing wrong with any of the numbers (Publisher or NDP), but I wouldn't compare a publisher number to a NDP number because you are comparing an accurate number for a publisher has all the information at hand, but places like VGChartz use formula to try and become accurate.

 

As far as the numbers EA uses we really don't know what numbers they really have access too before saying they are inaccurate for they get anonymous statistics all the time for the other information so they could easily have the amount of time people have been playing the game as well.

[Hiemoth]

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. 

 

Don't worry, I understood your point about the direction thing. It is also important to note that the our differing views on ME3 itself is without doubt at the heart of much of our disagreement here as well.

 

As for Casey and his impact, I've never really given credit on his impact on the writing, as I wil freely admit that like DA, ME series is composed as a group effort and a lot of the really great pieces of lore come from those writers. To me, Casey's impact was not the writing, but the greater vision and being the one who tied everything in the project together and, somewhat amusingly, I in turn feel that Casey doesn't get enough credit for his efforts in that regard.

 

The problem, for me, in drawing conclusions from changes in the creative in ME as the situation for DA is essentially different. ME3 was an end of a trilogy, wtih ME4 being by very nature being forced to something completely different. Thus I feel that we would have seen changes in the creative even if ME3 hadn't had the ending hassle. Besides, a thing that is always overlooked due to the ending dispute is that the writing of the game before the ending itself is actually generally very well received and even the ending hassle was largely dealt with by the EE DLC.

[In Exile]

Don't worry, I understood your point about the direction thing. It is also important to note that the our differing views on ME3 itself is without doubt at the heart of much of our disagreement here as well.

 

As for Casey and his impact, I've never really given credit on his impact on the writing, as I wil freely admit that like DA, ME series is composed as a group effort and a lot of the really great pieces of lore come from those writers. To me, Casey's impact was not the writing, but the greater vision and being the one who tied everything in the project together and, somewhat amusingly, I in turn feel that Casey doesn't get enough credit for his efforts in that regard.

 

The problem, for me, in drawing conclusions from changes in the creative in ME as the situation for DA is essentially different. ME3 was an end of a trilogy, wtih ME4 being by very nature being forced to something completely different. Thus I feel that we would have seen changes in the creative even if ME3 hadn't had the ending hassle. Besides, a thing that is always overlooked due to the ending dispute is that the writing of the game before the ending itself is actually generally very well received and even the ending hassle was largely dealt with by the EE DLC.

 

You're right that your differences on ME3 likely influence our view of both the reception of the creative team and, in particular, Casey. With regard to Casey, my position is that the overarching and fundamental weakness in ME (as a whole series) is how there was no greater vision, and the excellent character writing and the strong isolated set-pieces always and consistently failed to coalesce into a greater whole. To me, ME will always be an example - like BSG, actually, which the creators themselves compared it do at least during ME2's run - of a series where the parts were greater than their sum. 

 

My views on the endings and ME3 in general are different enough from the majority of those who disliked it that it wouldn't be fruitful for me to comment on the way the game otherwise went. For example, I thought the ending was quite tasteful and respectful of Shepard and Shepard's arc even in the vanilla version, and I thought that the series wrapped up every single outstanding plot-point in what amounted to an entire game that was just ME1, the extended epilogue. 

 

In any event, I think that where people ended up after the project wrapped up is always a sign of how well that project was received by the upper brass, and I think that ME3's reception - contrary to DAI's reception - did not sit as well with the EA overlords. 

[Valkyrja]

There is nothing wrong with any of the numbers (Publisher or NDP), but I wouldn't compare a publisher number to a NDP number because you are comparing an accurate number for a publisher has all the information at hand, but places like VGChartz use formula to try and become accurate.

 

As far as the numbers EA uses we really don't know what numbers they really have access too before saying they are inaccurate for they get anonymous statistics all the time for the other information so they could easily have the amount of time people have been playing the game as well.

 

NPD doesn't include digital which is increasing on consoles and is very important for sales on a certain platform. We're also often at the mercy of whoever dares risk leaking NPD numbers.

 

vgchartz has a bad reputation for a reason.

[Hiemoth]

In any event, I think that where people ended up after the project wrapped up is always a sign of how well that project was received by the upper brass, and I think that ME3's reception - contrary to DAI's reception - did not sit as well with the EA overlords. 

 

I think this sentence is actually the thing I have most issues with, as ME3 was critically extremely well received and won several awards as well. To tie it back to here, I guess for me I haven't really felt that much passion for DAI. I've seen several places discussing it as a good game, but nothing truly spectacular. Note, influenced without a doubt by my opinion on the game. Even beyond that, I would argue that the central driving vision with DA games, especially with DAI considering the dev time, has been much more muddled and overambitous with advertised features that have been removed from the final product.

 

I'm not pushing for the removal of any DA devs, far from it, but I just personally cannot see how the reception for ME3 outside the ending hustle was so bad that they pushed the main devs out of the door while DAI has been so brilliant that they are trying to keep the devs in.

[In Exile]

I think this sentence is actually the thing I have most issues with, as ME3 was critically extremely well received and won several awards as well. To tie it back to here, I guess for me I haven't really felt that much passion for DAI. I've seen several places discussing it as a good game, but nothing truly spectacular. Note, influenced without a doubt by my opinion on the game. Even beyond that, I would argue that the central driving vision with DA games, especially with DAI considering the dev time, has been much more muddled and overambitous with advertised features that have been removed from the final product.

 

I'm not pushing for the removal of any DA devs, far from it, but I just personally cannot see how the reception for ME3 outside the ending hustle was so bad that they pushed the main devs out of the door while DAI has been so brilliant that they are trying to keep the devs in.

 

The bold gave me a bit of a chuckle because - and I say this knowing full well the implications it carries for people's livelihoods when I say this - I actually think that DA would benefit from a very different creative vision from someone outside of Bioware. I'm not saying EA tries to poach Josh Sawyer, but there needs to me something different done from a design POV, IMO, because the DA series has had the same consistent weaknesses in design that go all the way back to KoTOR and BG.

 

DA2 and ME3 were similar in this regard: there was a brand damaging moment tied up closely with the release. When you have that situation on your hands, as an organization you're forced to ask yourself whether and to what extent you think the damage done to the brand was the product of your creative team or decisions made that were extrinsic to that team. 

 

And I think, though obviously this is influenced by my perception of the game, that DA was so far treated as a product of complying with extrinsic goals of development (e.g. short release cycle) vs. internal creative shortcomings. 

[Valkyrja]

Maybe after over a decade at BioWare and shipping four AAA games for them as Project Director, Casey Hudson just felt like moving on?

[In Exile]

Maybe after over a decade at BioWare and shipping four AAA games for them as Project Director, Casey Hudson just felt like moving on?

I think it's notable that he moved on to taking time off, and then to a competitor rather than to another division of EA. If you're a company in-love with a creative director, plan A when they want a new direction is to try and find a project - or see if you can find room to develop a project - that fits with their goals and vision. It would be, for example, like if Marvel wanted to keep a particular director in the stable (say, Joss Whedon) and would then get into a discussion about a property that isn't the Avengers to bring to the screen that would keep him onside with the company. 

[Cheviot]

I think it's notable that he moved on to taking time off, and then to a competitor rather than to another division of EA. If you're a company in-love with a creative director, plan A when they want a new direction is to try and find a project - or see if you can find room to develop a project - that fits with their goals and vision. It would be, for example, like if Marvel wanted to keep a particular director in the stable (say, Joss Whedon) and would then get into a discussion about a property that isn't the Avengers to bring to the screen that would keep him onside with the company. 

I get what you're saying, but it's not as if they dropped him instantly.  He was working at Bioware for 2 years after the whole kerfuffle in the same position, overseeing not only the new Mass Effect, but also giving input on the mysterious IP.  This does not seem like the sign of a company wanting to get rid of someone. 

[Hiemoth]

The bold gave me a bit of a chuckle because - and I say this knowing full well the implications it carries for people's livelihoods when I say this - I actually think that DA would benefit from a very different creative vision from someone outside of Bioware. I'm not saying EA tries to poach Josh Sawyer, but there needs to me something different done from a design POV, IMO, because the DA series has had the same consistent weaknesses in design that go all the way back to KoTOR and BG.

 

To move, at least, briefly away from ME, I actually agree with this to a degree. I don't think, because of the livelihoods involved, that any people in the core creative should be removed, but I do think, and hope as something that has already happened, that they did take a step back in the dev and look at those consistant flaws. And I wouldn't just stop at KoTOR and BG, this was something that was also really clear with JE.

 

The current creative top seems to be really ambitious and not just want to do these really awesome things, but also publicly speak about those awesome things in early development only to realize that they couldn't do it. As an example from DAI, the promised of evolution of the Inquisition itself and how strongholds were supposed to feed in to that or how they wanted to create a lot of big branching story moments which would shut out content for players. For me, the only reason they managed to avoid this to a large degree in DAO, is that both the game mechanic and the story are really simple, lacking those really ambitious parts that were failed to implement.

 

It's somewhat funny to me, as even though those same flaws are visible in DA2, actually I feel that majority of their goals were realistic for DA2, but cut down by the insanely short dev cycle. For large part until Act 3, their level-dependant variables actually worked and the wave combat was already implemented in Act 1 as they wished to be more varied from encounter to encounter, just to name a few things. Yet, out of all their ambitous projects, that is the one they are publicly slamming as a mistake.

[Hiemoth]

I get what you're saying, but it's not as if they dropped him instantly.  He was working at Bioware for 2 years after the whole kerfuffle in the same position, overseeing not only the new Mass Effect, but also giving input on the mysterious IP.  This does not seem like the sign of a company wanting to get rid of someone. 

 

Exactly. Besides that, we have to also consider where he left and I would fiercely argue that his new position at Microsoft is a more important position than his old one at EA.

 

Honestly, I always kind of felt that toxic response to the ME3 endings and his need to constantly defend his own right to have an artistic vision probably burned him out to some degree and he just to step away.

[Cheviot]

Exactly. Besides that, we have to also consider where he left and I would fiercely argue that his new position at Microsoft is a more important position than his old one at EA.

 

Honestly, I always kind of felt that toxic response to the ME3 endings and his need to constantly defend his own right to have an artistic vision probably burned him out to some degree and he just to step away.

The problem is that, because there is (and likely always will be) a lot we don't know about the whole thing, all of us tend to add our own beliefs and biases to our interpretation.

[Sanunes]

NPD doesn't include digital which is increasing on consoles and is very important for sales on a certain platform. We're also often at the mercy of whoever dares risk leaking NPD numbers.

 

vgchartz has a bad reputation for a reason.

 

I won't disagree, I just mean I wouldn't have nearly the same problem with someone comparing numbers that are only guesses based on NDP numbers without any official releases from a publisher, not that I would consider them accurate.

[Joseph Warrick]

The game probably did well enough. People enjoy dramatic reactions. They have fun imagining corporate meetings with people screaming and long faces like a scene in a TV show. Big revelations that Must Not Leave This Room! It's exciting to think about.

 

Reality is often a bit duller. It was probably not enough to brag about (which is why we have no numbers) and enough to keep the series going. Boring I know.

[Rocknife]

First week hard copy sales were about same as DA2 but since digital copies are usually sold more these days DAI sales must be better than DA2 sales overall. Actually I was shocked to see the results since DA2 was considered a complete failure in both preiews, rankings and sales after DAO's great success... I expect a Potato Simulator 2015 to sell better than DA2 so...  Still I hope DAI sold well enough so Bioware have more budget for the next DA games, though them pricing even the least important DLCs at relatively higher prices worries me. I hope it's not a sign that game did not sell well. Though I hope Bioware got the message that a game like DAO with DAI graphics could probably sell twice as much as DAI, perhaps even more...

 

In UK, FIFA and GTAV were on top of the best selling list until The Witcher 3 came out yet The Witcher 3 Wild Hunt proved to be the fastest selling game regarding their first week while DAI was the fifth on that same list in the first week... I'd have preferred to see DAI on top of that list to be honest. Not because DAI is the best game that ever made, but because it is certain tha TW3 was the last Witcher game while DA will continue so DA will need better budget for a better game. Though, gotta give credit to where it's due, I enjoyed TW3 greatly, TW3 was probably the game of the year if new Batman game cannot surpass it. They made a perfect job of game producing when it comes to making it truly a living and atmospheric open world, graphics and combat system while DAI failed to match TW3 in those areas. Another area TW3 is luckier than DAI was the protagonist. Bioware had a fans favorite protagonist for DAO but the protagonists came after that failed to have the same effect while TW3 protagonist Geralt on his own was one of the main reasons why TW3 sold that well. Protagonists matter as much as stories, since they are the biggest part of the story. Geralt of Rivia's story had top-quality stuff when it comes to romance, abilities and background. The unexpected and intense love between the mutant/tainted hero and a dark-haired sorceress is one of the concepts TW3 and DAO shared, strangely they both were the most successful games of their respective franchise. Protagonist being a member of the order that was dedicated to slay monsters is another common concept for both games.

 

 

Two ways to look at it;
1) DAI sold more than it could have because it looked much better than the previous DA game: DA2.

2) DA series lost some customers because of the failure and disappointment DA2 caused after DAO.

 

2 may have overweighed the 1 in this case. Though gotta mention post-DAO syndrome may have a huge role in the number of the sales. DAO was a great success in both reviews, fan reactions and number of sales so set a new high for the RolePlaying Games. With the effect DAO had on RPG fans, DA2 sold a lot more than it should have yet in the long term DA2 also lost Bioware a big number of fanbase due to disappointment. Since many of the buyers have also played DAO and DA2 before playing DAI, they thought this game would be better than DA2 and worse than DAO. To break this thought, Bioware made DAO free to buy on Origin. It was a smart move, in my opinion, to show new players the better game you made so the potential customers would expect more from the new game. It also supports my suspicions about the negative effects DA2 had on sales and the fan base.

 

Financially speaking; I'm sure DAI made more profit than DA2 since net profit per game for DAI must be greater than DA2, even though budget for DAI was a lot higher than DA2. Still, Bioware pricing simplest and least significant DLCs pricing at high sums makes me worry about the sum of the profit they made off DAI. I think they did not get the profit they expected and trying their chances with high priced DLCs and expansions. I hope they sell well (didn't buy Jaws of Hakkon, personally speaking) but I also hope they got the clear messages number of hard copy sales have for them. I'd say, follow the path DAO cleared for you. Combat system, story, companions, protagonist, atmosphere, everything was perfect in DAO.

 

To summarize; it is obvious the sales were not that great but still better than DA2. As I said, I expect a Potato Simulator 2015 to sell better than DA2 so this doesn't say a lot on its own. I'm not glad that the sales were not great since the greater the sales are the higher the budget for the next games is. Though I'm glad the number of sales gives a clear message to the company: Stick to what you did best in your successful games, don't insist on what failed in your less successful games and you'll sell more and more.

 

As far as I know the publisher didn't announc the number of sales for DAI but I heard that DAI sold 1,1 million copies in the first 4 weeks. The Witcher 3 Wild Hunt sold more than 4 million copies in the first two weeks. That might give some idea about how well DAI sold. CD Projekt Red giving weekly Free DLC might have affected the numbers but that much domination as soon as the game came out... CDPR sure made a great reputation for themselves from the scratch, gotta congratulate... Though their reputation was mainly created by The Witcher series and now the Witcher series have ended wit the Witcher 3 Wild Hunt, their job is harder than ever. It will be difficult for them to match the expectation after the Witcher franchise.

[Hiemoth]

Financially speaking; I'm sure DAI made more profit than DA2 since net profit per game for DAI must be greater than DA2, even though budget for DAI was a lot higher than DA2. Still, Bioware pricing simplest and least significant DLCs pricing at high sums makes me worry about the sum of the profit they made off DAI. I think they did not get the profit they expected and trying their chances with high priced DLCs and expansions. I hope they sell well (didn't buy Jaws of Hakkon, personally speaking) but I also hope they got the clear messages number of hard copy sales have for them. I'd say, follow the path DAO cleared for you. Combat system, story, companions, protagonist, atmosphere, everything was perfect in DAO.

 

This makes no sense. DAI had a developmental cycle almost three times as long as DA2 as well as much more resources spent on it, at least apparently. How on Earth do you jump to the conclusion the net profit per game is higher for DAI? Especially since you already noted that the budget is higher for DAI?

 

Also, what do you base the claim on that they did not get the profit they were expecting? Were you discussing this matter with someone from EA or Bioware? is there a statement lost somewhere?

[Rocknife]

Number of digital sales were obviously greater than DA2. As I said, I'd expect a Potato Simulator to sell better than DA2... And I think EA sells a copy of DAI for a higher price than they sold DA2, that was the point.

 

About the second part, overpricing the DLCs, add-ons and expansions made me think the company is trying to reach the goal profit with the help of these and publishers/producers being reluctant to announce the number of sales made me think so. I did not say "yeah, I know that they're disappointed". I said I am worried that they might have earned less profit than they expected and I hope that doesn't affect their plans for the next Dragon Age game in a negative way.

[AlanC9]

Number of digital sales were obviously greater than DA2. As I said, I'd expect a Potato Simulator to sell better than DA2... And I think EA sells a copy of DAI for a higher price than they sold DA2, that was the point.

How do you figure that? Greater percentage of DD sales?
 

About the second part, overpricing the DLCs, add-ons and expansions made me think the company is trying to reach the goal profit with the help of these and publishers/producers being reluctant to announce the number of sales made me think so. I did not say "yeah, I know that they're disappointed". I said I am worried that they might have earned less profit than they expected and I hope that doesn't affect their plans for the next Dragon Age game in a negative way.

Are these DLCs any more overpriced than other Bio DLCs? I don't see it.

[Heimdall]

EA told their investors that DAI's performance exceeded their expectations, and credit it as the primary reason the company as a whole had exceeded performance estimates (Mentioned one the same breath as FIFA and Madden). Do you really think they'd do that for a game that was selling badly? They can't tell investors bald faced lies.

Also, remember that the "best launch" comment comes from January, when the game had only been out two months, so I don't think the term "launch" is suspect.

EA also gives no figures for any of its specific game sales, so it's not as if DAI was unique in that regard, it seems to be a matter of company policy.

They also brought up DAI unprompted in their next earnings call (April I think), describing the decision to push the game back a month as an example of when they had to make a hard decision that turned out well for them.

By all indications, DAI is a serious money maker.

[Rocknife]

DAI had to make a great profit and I did not say DAI did not make a great profit. Any game who sells 1,1-1,8 millions of copies in first two weeks can make a great profit. DAI had to be a serious money maker for the money invested in its making is extremely serious as well. Selling about 1,8 million copies in the first two weeks is a good number for most games and any producer/publisher could be satisfied with it but personally I expected for DAI to sell more because I think DAI deserves more. DAI is actually very good in many areas, like character designs, plot twists, environment and building designs etc. and DAI is nowhere near as terrible as DA2 so I expected and wanted DAI to sell even more.

 

DAI was $70 if I remember correctly when it first came. Let's say $50 per game is net profit and DAI sold 2 millions in the first two weeks, DAI made $100 millions net profit only in the first two weeks. This is a huge sum and obviously enough to encourage developers to make more DA games. I do not say this is a bad amount. But there are other games that are, in my opinion, about as good as DAI and not that much better than it but sold more than 4 million copies in the first two weeks. This is just absurd. That is why I felt DAI deserved more sales and below my personal expectations.

[AlanC9]

IIRC DAI launched at industry-standard $60 for the standard edition. That 50/70 split isn't very realistic either, unless PC DD sales are an outright majority of units sold

[I saved Star Wars :D]

DAI had to make a great profit and I did not say DAI did not make a great profit. Any game who sells 1,1-1,8 millions of copies in first two weeks can make a great profit. DAI had to be a serious money maker for the money invested in its making is extremely serious as well. Selling about 1,8 million copies in the first two weeks is a good number for most games and any producer/publisher could be satisfied with it but personally I expected for DAI to sell more because I think DAI deserves more. DAI is actually very good in many areas, like character designs, plot twists, environment and building designs etc. and DAI is nowhere near as terrible as DA2 so I expected and wanted DAI to sell even more.

 

DAI was $70 if I remember correctly when it first came. Let's say $50 per game is net profit and DAI sold 2 millions in the first two weeks, DAI made $100 millions net profit only in the first two weeks. This is a huge sum and obviously enough to encourage developers to make more DA games. I do not say this is a bad amount. But there are other games that are, in my opinion, about as good as DAI and not that much better than it but sold more than 4 million copies in the first two weeks. This is just absurd. That is why I felt DAI deserved more sales and below my personal expectations.

 

With respect, I am not sure where you get your sales numbers from or whether you know what 'net profit' means XD.

 

It does sound like we both enjoy the game and want it to do well and, on that basis, positive statements from EA and tweets about voice acting are all the solid info we have. Happily, it sold well enough that more content is incoming!

[Xetykins]

I don't care about these things. I'm sure(hope) that they made money enough to give us DA4 and then some.

[Ariella]

I don't care about these things. I'm sure(hope) that they made money enough to give us DA4 and then some.

Considering EA seems happy, I think it is a good shot, unless something really horribly massively wrong happen. I say this just for full disclosure.

[Cobra's_back]

I don't care about these things. I'm sure(hope) that they made money enough to give us DA4 and then some.

 

EA stocks went up. They said this game was one of the reason for that. I'm not worried about it.