Dragon Age 2

[entrerix]

Nope, I don't pretend to understand commerce, I'm not a businessman.

 

 

ahhh your first mistake. we are all businessmen here.

 

second mistake was trying to converse with volourn.

 

zing. zing.

 

you're welcome

Edited April 10, 2011 by entrerix

[Tigranes]

Generally,

 

(1) Often reports of "x sold" actually means "x shipped", i.e. how many copies they shipped off to distributors. You could have 1 mjillion shipped and only half that sold - it happens a fair amount of times.

(2) VGChartz, well, Volo is actually right here, it's fantasy. They really have no 'inside information' per se and don't know a lot more than we do, and in addition they have some big problems such as failing to count any digital sales of PC games, or often confusing (1) themselves.

 

At this point I really don't care much about DA franchise at all, but it'd be interesting to get some good info on sales figures if we ever get them.

[John Lemon]

(1) Often reports of "x sold" actually means "x shipped", i.e. how many copies they shipped off to distributors. You could have 1 miillion shipped and only half that sold - it happens a fair amount of times.

Ah, fair enough, although given the way economics is supposed to work, shouldn't the difference between the two be negligible?

(2) VGChartz, well, Volo is actually right here, it's fantasy. They really have no 'inside information' per se and don't know a lot more than we do, and in addition they have some big problems such as failing to count any digital sales of PC games, or often confusing (1) themselves.

 

At this point I really don't care much about DA franchise at all, but it'd be interesting to get some good info on sales figures if we ever get them.

Given their stated methodology, I don't think the accuracy of their figures is all that bad, particularly since they call retailers in each region to see how many they've sold and use online video game ownership trackers. I've got greater doubts about their estimations for pre-orders and retail panel scaling.

 

As for digital distribution, why do you think I doubled the sales figures for the PC version?

[greylord]

No, no it's not. It's pure fantasy made up numbers. NPD itself isn't 100% accurate but at least it's logical nad they put some effort into it. But vgchartyz is a joke.

Really? AFAIK Bioware said DA2 sold 1 million copies in two weeks. VGChartz pegs it at 927,857 in two weeks discounting digital distribution (Doubling PC sales figures to account for such would yield 1,109,689). Unless you live in the land of unattainable standards and eternal failure, I'd say that's a pretty decent estimate.

 

You do understand when there are public announcement about sales figures from a company, they do NOT state exact sales numbers right? You do understand all of the factors that surround such an announcement as well as why they do not ever release actual sales numbers right?

 

VGChartz are fake magical fantasy numbers. He is 100% correct in that assessment.

 

Also realize that most times BW release shipped to sale numbers instead of actual numbers sold. VG chartz seems to be the best indicator of sales besides NPD that is around in regards to actual store sales.

 

Or you could believe that Dianetics has been the number 1 bestseller for the past several decades, every year, due to how many they have in their shipped to sales numbers (they don't count the shipped back numbers)...

 

VG is like the NYT bestseller list...both get information which is more a sampling of what is selling out there and extrapolate, then the real hard numbers, especially in these days and times (actual hard numbers for book best sellers from retail and electronic is wild crazy in how far the numbers differ)...but probably reliable enough to figure out how well something is doing in comparison to something else.

 

I have to admit I haven't really bothered to pay attention to the numbers for DA2, or look them up. Still to early in the ballgame to really determine how it's going to do. Give it a year, see what the sale price of it is and then look at the resultant numbers and one probably could get a better picture. I have a feeling it won't do as well as DAO did, or that ME2 did...probably not even as good as ME3 will, even as a last month release (though that is VERY hopeful thinking on my part, ME3 would literally have to sell better then any BW game ever has before...which I'm thinking it might, depending on DRM and how annoying it is...as well as if they screw up or not with ME3 and it gets out during the first week sales or not). Christmas can be a good time for sales.

 

I'm certain DA2 made money for BW however. I'd be greatly surprised if it didn't. I think the compressed timeline for making it, with the shortcuts they took (reused areas, reused romances, reused major areas for acts...etc.) means they spent less on it then DAO or either of the ME games...meaning that percentage wise they may even have made a higher percentage money off of DA2 than any of their previous games!

 

As I said however, hard to tell this early on. Anyone up for the quarterly?

[Tigranes]

Ah, fair enough, although given the way economics is supposed to work, shouldn't the difference between the two be negligible?

 

You'd think that they would be as closely aligned as possible to ensure efficiency, but in reality it just is not the case - it ties into things like how shelfspace in physical stores are 'bought' and allocated, how distributors and the publishers estimate demand (based on preorders, etc), etc. It's really hard to get enough 100% numbers to verify suspicions outside the industry but theres enough to suggest that we can't assume 1:1 shipped-sold.

 

I don't want to go on and on about VGChartz since it's one of those eternal internet debates, but if we just ask the question, can we use its current estimates as a ballpark figure for DA2's sales, I'm skeptical. They currently have roughtly 600k (360) + 300k (PS3) + 200k (PC), but those are pretty low figures and the margin of error will impact the data more. We know that they often use a limited sample (e.g. calling 5% of US stores) and extrapolate from there, so a general margin of error of 15-20% is to not unreasonable; but in this case that would be the difference between, say, under a million total (which would be seen by Bio/EA as Very Bad) or approaching 1.5mil with digital PC sales (which would be seen by Bio/EA as pretty good...I think?). There's also no basis to double PC figures toa ccount for digital sales, since nobody really knows - digital sales could be way more than physical, or less, or whatever. Factoring everything in, what we could say is that based on VGChartz' data, we can argue DA2 most likely sold between, say, 0.75-1.5 million. Which really just tells us, "it sold more than Planescape: Torment but less than Call of Duty".

 

For reference, a fairly decent review of VGChartz' advantages and flaws. Without judging its merits as a whole, for the question of whether we can take its estimates on a game released under a month ago, I feel that the influence of extrapolation and educated guessing is too high.

[Monte Carlo]

I think the best way forward is to relax and wait for EA's own figures, after their digital, GotY and DA2: Gold (etc etc) editions are done. The successful lifespan of a game nowadays moves beyond the first heady quarter after release.

 

DA2 wil have sold well across all platforms and be commercially successful, it's a given. The economic environment is tough, games are luxury products, Bio have done well with what is by any objective standard a controversial product.

 

So chill.

[Meshugger]

True, but I stopped having any respect for Angry Joe when I watched his interview at the VGAs and gained a lot more for Geoff in the process. Watching an "internet star" get his massive ego taken down a notch certainly was entertaining though.

 

It's pathetic, really.

 

... this might be going off-topic. We should get back to bitching about DA2.

 

Interesting, why should this Geoff guy be given more respect?

 

On another note, my significant other gave me the signature edition(PC) as a birtday gift. I have no further comment othat than the engine a runs smoothly on my computer.

[Nepenthe]

Generally,

 

(1) Often reports of "x sold" actually means "x shipped", i.e. how many copies they shipped off to distributors. You could have 1 mjillion shipped and only half that sold - it happens a fair amount of times.

 

... I'm pretty sure that generally reports of numbers are "x shipped", but I've never seen "x sold" mean anything else than "x sold". Because that would be kind of serious case of misleading by a listed company.

 

I mean, the two can get confused when laymen come here with their numbers, but if the company is saying "x sold", then it sure as hell should be "x sold"!

[Tigranes]

What I mean is a company says 'x shipped' and it gets reported / spread as 'x sold'.

 

But yes, a company's official reports to shareholders, etc. are the most reliable sources of sales info - sometimes we get them and tahts the hard numbers.

[Monte Carlo]

Generally,

 

(1) Often reports of "x sold" actually means "x shipped", i.e. how many copies they shipped off to distributors. You could have 1 mjillion shipped and only half that sold - it happens a fair amount of times.

 

... I'm pretty sure that generally reports of numbers are "x shipped", but I've never seen "x sold" mean anything else than "x sold". Because that would be kind of serious case of misleading by a listed company.

 

I mean, the two can get confused when laymen come here with their numbers, but if the company is saying "x sold", then it sure as hell should be "x sold"!

 

IIRC the newspaper industry (dead tree) has always operated like this in terms of circulation.

[Volourn]

"I'm completely aware of Bioware saying "Broke the one million mark" instead of "Sold ____ copies" in two weeks. If Bioware is at all honest, that would mean they've sold at least a million copies of DA2 in two weeks. VGChartz gives a comparable sales figure, and as such I see no point in dismissing their estimates out of hand because they're not NPD figures."

 

You complain I'm dimissing vghchaertz out of hand but so far in this thread you've dismissed multiple people out of hand for daring to laugh at vgchartz. Please don't be a hypocrite. vgchartz is make believe. They don't have hard data. None of us know exactly how much DA2 sold but the difference between us and chartz is we're not seriously making up magical numbers and trying to pretend they're accurate.

 

Best to wait for actual numbers. The closest to actual numbers is BIO press release. It should be noted that EA 9which includes BIO) can't really get away with 'lying' as stockholders would not be appreciative of that.

[Tigranes]

I can't remember with certainty whether they do the shipped=sold thing, but for papers the whole thing works mostly in reverse - because in so many cases 1 subscription would actually mean more than 1 reader (1 for a family, etc), they've traditionally done something like tripling their circulation numbers (i.e. the actual number of subscriptions) to gauge their actual readership. Obviously that's also problematic, but in that case it's because it's nearly impossible to keep track - that's more comparable, say, to guessing what the ratio of pirates to buyers is for video games. In this case, it is possible for companies to actually keep track of how many copioes sold to the dot.

 

The only question is how much to trust extrapolated, estimated figures, and my point is that if you build in a healthy margin of error as is only reasonable, then the figures are only useful in specific situations, and this isn't one of them. (i.e. unless anyone's wondering whether DA2 outsold Starcraft 2...)

[Nepenthe]

Apart from the fact that absolute sales numbers are basically for (internet) muscle-flexing only. I wouldn't be surprised if the cost/return ratio for DA2 was significantly higher even with considerably lower numbers of product sold, just due to the fact that DAO had been in production for, what 5-8 years, while DA2 had a full crew on it for ~a year, year and a half depending on what they did while the console ports were underway.

 

And what does all this mean for us, the non-bean counters. **** all.

[Volourn]

"what 5-8 years"

 

It's like that thing that was said. Next tiem someone brings up how long it took DA to be amde, it will be 8-12 years. L0L

 

p.s. Numbers may be menaingless in the grand scheme of thinsg for us internet dweebs, but it's just another thing for us punks to disucss and spam about. That's what the internet is for! To talk about things that a) one knows nothing or very little about and b) doesn't actually effect you at all.

 

R00fles!

[RPGmasterBoo]

I think the numbers are less relevant compared to the reputation lost with the inferior quality of the game and the various scandals around it.

 

Bioware might be wise to drop the DA line entirely. The engine is outdated garbage, they've managed to split the fan base and selling a potential sequel will be harder than it needed to be.

 

I think the DA universe was an unoriginal flop from the start (unlike ME which at least has some variety and design going for it) and a return to licensed products would be rather refreshing.

 

Fading Suns RPG anyone? The license must be dirt cheap now.

Edited April 10, 2011 by RPGmasterBoo

[Volourn]

"Even if DA2 makes a lot of money a certain number of customers have been lost or shaken by a bad game, and that might show in the future."

 

That's waht people claimed about NWN, KOTOR, JE (depsite it's low end sales for a BIo title), ME, DA, and ME2. That somehow those games would be the end of BIO. Yet, here we are, 15 years or so into their existence and still going (albeit no longer strauight up BIO but BIO-EA).

 

One of these days someone is gonna proclaim the 'death of BIO' and will luckily be right and will able to brag 'told ya so' which isn't thatn impressive when it took multiple predictions of 'doom' for it to come true. Kinda like the 'end of the world' prophecies.. kinda lose their emaning after you've heard your 10th one.

 

P.S. DA setting a 'flop'.. Right. Must explain the two games, expansion, two internet based games 9including turn based), two novels, a billion DLCs, and all sorts of merchandise. Talk about a 'dead setting'. R00fles!

 

P.S. The idea that a 'return to unoriginal Ips' would be refreshing is just hilarious!

 

 

P.S. BIO is 'returning' to established Ips btw with KOTORO MMO... Not to mention Sonic Chronicles. HAHAHAHA! So, there is no 'returning'; but a 'never left'.

Edited April 10, 2011 by Volourn

[Monte Carlo]

I think the numbers are less relevant compared to the reputation lost with the inferior quality of the game and the various scandals around it.

Even if DA2 makes a lot of money a certain number of customers have been lost or shaken by a bad game, and that might show in the future.

 

Bioware might be wise to drop the DA line entirely. The engine is outdated garbage, they've managed to split the fan base and selling a potential sequel will be harder than it needed to be.

 

I'm not being obtuse, Boo, because I think we are generally in agreement on these issues, but you are mistaken here IMO.

 

Bio are simply riding the commercial wave and shoe-horning their games into the format that makes them more money, after all they are a business not a charity for niche gamers. Forget them, support indie developers and look elsewhere. Take heart that Bio will eventually be shat out of the end of the EA digestive tract like those who went before, Greg & Ray have made their (seriously, much-deserved) fortunes.

 

Bioware's legacy won't be what they did at the end of their existence as a developer, it will be what they did originally, which deserves respect. But right now? Forget it.

[RPGmasterBoo]

"Even if DA2 makes a lot of money a certain number of customers have been lost or shaken by a bad game, and that might show in the future."

 

That's waht people claimed about NWN, KOTOR, JE (depsite it's low end sales for a BIo title), ME, DA, and ME2. That somehow those games would be the end of BIO. Yet, here we are, 15 years or so into their existence and still going (albeit no longer strauight up BIO but BIO-EA).

 

One of these days someone is gonna proclaim the 'death of BIO' and will luckily be right and will able to brag 'told ya so' which isn't thatn impressive when it took multiple predictions of 'doom' for it to come true. Kinda like the 'end of the world' prophecies.. kinda lose their emaning after you've heard your 10th one.

 

I'm thinking its more the death knell of the DA line (or if it isn't, it should be) rather than the company. A big game company needs a string of crappy titles to really go down. Even so its in EA's interest to keep a prestigious name like Bioware alive, even if its on life support.

 

It pretty much hangs on ME3 and TOR now, and what EA managers think of their sales figures.

 

DA's setting is a creative and artistic flop. I don't care how many cocaine buckets it bought, not everything is in money. But that's just my opinion so whatever.

 

"unoriginal IP's"? You make it sound like they did every IP ever made. No RPG developer has anything in their catalogue even remotely like Fading Suns, while DAs toilet paper fantasy is a dime a dozen.

Edited April 10, 2011 by RPGmasterBoo

[RPGmasterBoo]

Bio are simply riding the commercial wave and shoe-horning their games into the format that makes them more money, after all they are a business not a charity for niche gamers. Forget them, support indie developers and look elsewhere. Take heart that Bio will eventually be shat out of the end of the EA digestive tract like those who went before, Greg & Ray have made their (seriously, much-deserved) fortunes.

 

Bioware's legacy won't be what they did at the end of their existence as a developer, it will be what they did originally, which deserves respect. But right now? Forget it.

 

I think I said something of the sort before, and while you're obviously right there is the miserable situation with other game developers to consider. If or when they kick the bucket there won't be a single developer barring Bethesda with serious cash to burn on an RPG.

 

While serious money does not necessarily =good game, there's only so much you can cut before you get a subpar game, especially with RPG's being as expensive and risky as they are.

 

Bioware are worth to me only on the production values they could potentially bring to a hypothetical game I'd want to play. Its a long shot, but its not like I have anything much to expect, barring TW2.

Edited April 10, 2011 by RPGmasterBoo

[Monte Carlo]

Boo, the wheel turns and we are at the crappy end of that CRPG-wise. Just sit out and wait for the next full revolution.

 

The good news is that CRPGs at the more modest end of the scale can still be good. Take two different ends of the spectrum like Torchlight (H&S) and Escalon (utter old-skool). You still have high-end stuff like Bethseda and CDProjeckt too.

 

The glass is half-full, not half-empty. As Bio goes in it's own direction towards a new, very different and mainstream CRPG market you have to see the classic equal and opposite reaction elsewhere. Because Bio's new direction is so freaking lame, so freaking vanilla, so utterly devoid of soul the reaction to it is probably going to be awesome and we can't predict what it might be.

 

So chill.

[RPGmasterBoo]

Boo, the wheel turns and we are at the crappy end of that CRPG-wise. Just sit out and wait for the next full revolution.

 

The good news is that CRPGs at the more modest end of the scale can still be good. Take two different ends of the spectrum like Torchlight (H&S) and Escalon (utter old-skool). You still have high-end stuff like Bethseda and CDProjeckt too.

 

The glass is half-full, not half-empty. As Bio goes in it's own direction towards a new, very different and mainstream CRPG market you have to see the classic equal and opposite reaction elsewhere. Because Bio's new direction is so freaking lame, so freaking vanilla, so utterly devoid of soul the reaction to it is probably going to be awesome and we can't predict what it might be.

 

So chill.

 

I suppose so. I though the situation was crap years ago and then the Witcher came out and blew me away.

 

/sentimental mode off

 

Now we can go and give Volo a wedgie.

[Volourn]

"It pretty much hangs on ME3 and TOR now, and what EA managers think of their sales figures."

 

The OR would effect BIO. If bombs, very likely only the TEX BIo will be closed and they don't really count.

 

 

"But that's just my opinion so whatever."

 

I rest my case, your honour. Your 9and my) opinions mean squat to BIO/EA. Neither one of us have the power tod etermine the success or failure of a game. Just because you dislike (and I like) DA means nothing and is useless garbage when determining a successful or failed IP.

 

That's why even though I loathe the ES series (and TW to a lesser degree), I'm not living in Make Believe Land like you and grudglingly state that those IPs are successful whetehr I like them or not. I liek Arcanum, but it was a failed IP. Period.

[Niten_Ryu]

EA financial report will give us the real figure, if Dragon Age 2 has been success in their point of view. If not, we might not get numbers at all (other then that Bioware's 1 million units moved statement). Ea might use something like "haven't performed as well as we expected" for Dragon Age brand if sales are bellow target.

 

Some non-Dragon Age data from last financial report conference transcript and other investor material (yes, I'm stupid enough to read 'em ).

My second point about the industry relates to the reliability of retail tracking services and the near total absence of digital sales

recorded by those databases. This is a point I made on our last call. Today, we estimate that digital sales represent roughly 30%

of revenue in Western markets and roughly 45% worldwide, sales not captured in the retail tracking data. The exclusion of this

data works to the disadvantage of investors and companies that participate in this sector.

Might be helpful if someone want to make predictions how much sales are not counted on NDP

 

John Riccitiello - Electronic Arts - CEO

We are intending to manage our intellectual properties intelligently, and we've got some of the world's best intellectual properties

with Battlefield and The Sims, with Need for Speed and Madden, with FIFA and Dragon Age and Mass Effect, and so we're getting

behind these core franchises and driving them ever harder.

Not sure that they hit the mark with Dragon Age 2. But sales will tell the whole story.

 

EA SPORTS Active 2 was well below our expectations for the quarter.

Example how bad numbers are not (always) reported

 

keep an eye out for $100 million-plus campaign for the "Call of Duty" competitor "Battlefield 3.0" this holiday season

http://adage.com/article/special-report-di...s-media/226832/

EA and Bioware said that they want to go after CoD gamers but Dragon Age 2 didn't get this high ad budget

It's gonna be bloody battle between next CoD and Battlefield 3. No matter who win, we'll probably lose.

[Orogun01]

Boo, the wheel turns and we are at the crappy end of that CRPG-wise. Just sit out and wait for the next full revolution.

 

The good news is that CRPGs at the more modest end of the scale can still be good. Take two different ends of the spectrum like Torchlight (H&S) and Escalon (utter old-skool). You still have high-end stuff like Bethseda and CDProjeckt too.

 

The glass is half-full, not half-empty. As Bio goes in it's own direction towards a new, very different and mainstream CRPG market you have to see the classic equal and opposite reaction elsewhere. Because Bio's new direction is so freaking lame, so freaking vanilla, so utterly devoid of soul the reaction to it is probably going to be awesome and we can't predict what it might be.

 

So chill.

You make it sound as though video games are going through an artistic period. With one side embracing blind innovation without taste and the other reacting towards more conservative values. Although the great difference in the amount of resources used and the quality of both products might make me consider mainstream as the clear loser.

[Monte Carlo]

^ Possibly. Add to that the fact that consoles have peaked performance-wise for the next three or four years. PC gamers benefit from that and a good CRPG manifestly doesn't need to be a systems hawg to look and feel good.

 

I've posted here before that the future for good, new-old-skool CRPGs might well mirror the thriving and profitable (albeit smaller-scale) computer war games market (check out Matrix Games if you don't believe me). The first generation of elite modders are now in the position to get involved if they choose not to go mainstream.

 

Plus, as I said to Boo earlier, bigger dev houses (and indeed I include Obsidian in this) are still making interesting, different and rewarding CRPGs (I would put both AP and FO:NV in this category).