The BioWare/Ea Speculation Thread

[Jaesun]

I'd be willing to bet, in actual sales (with the highest margin of profit) was Mass Effect 2. There was ore interest in DA2 (because of the very very heavy marketing campaign on it) lead to more shipped games. I don't remember ME2 being as marketed as heavily as DA2 was. Seriously, every time I watched TV there was a fucking DA2 commercial on every 5 minutes. I just base this on my own experience as a person who did work in sales analysis.

I think ME3 will sell well, at least initially. We'll probably hear about how it broke 1 million units in a week or something like that. And then after about three weeks the hype will fade away. The reality of how broken the game is will have spread by word of mouth at that point, and sales will drop considerably. Overall it might hit 2 to 3 million units by March 2013, which I imagine will be well below both Bioware's and EA's expectations.

If ME3 does do that poorly, there will be repercussions at Bioware.

Since this is the last of the Shepard Trilogy ™, I pretty much see EA moving this to another developer (and then naming them "BioWare") or dropping it all together. Though if it remains profitable regardless of the numbers it may stay on. I just don't know where EA draws the line on profitable. Though lately they more than likely will continue on with ANY game that is at least profitable as they haven't been doing very good lately.

 

[Angthoron]

Speaking of sales figures, didn't that interview Larian had for Codex say that their total DKS sales figures are close to the sales figures of DA: O? I suppose that might be PC-only, but considering Bio has the EA's publishing and advertising might to back them, that's pretty fucking dire for them if a media underdog manages to get similar numbers. (Yay, Larian, though!)

 

[RPGMaster]

ME3 will have fairly big opening week, then plummet ~70% in the second week. Both ME2 and DA2 did.

 

[Infinitron]

I don't know. I don't think ME3 will be bad bad. Just full of derp. But maybe I'm wrong.

 

[Stinger]

So this is a general Bioware discussion thread as opposed to the other one where you just post derp and laugh at how pathetic they are?

Well, Drew Karpyshyn has left, in order to pursue writing novels. How long do you think he'll last before he comes back to the company, realising that his godawful shitty prose writing will not fly in anything beyond tie in novels?

 

[Roguey]

So they admit that the DA IP was more succeful than the ME IP but then they more or less tried to turn the more succesful one it into the less succesfull one with DA2?

It's all about maximizing return on investment, DA:O took too many years and ME very likely made more despite (maybe) having fewer numbers.

Speaking of sales figures, didn't that interview Larian had for Codex say that their total DKS sales figures are close to the sales figures of DA: O? I suppose that might be PC-only, but considering Bio has the EA's publishing and advertising might to back them, that's pretty fucking dire for them if a media underdog manages to get similar numbers. (Yay, Larian, though!)

He said "We even outsold or came close to outselling Dragon Age in some territories" not necessarily total. I doubt it's even close in North America.

 

[Infinitron]

It's all about maximizing return on investment, DA:O took too many years and ME very likely made more despite (maybe) having fewer numbers.

But most of those years were just Gaider sitting in a basement writing lore, plus the one-time cost of making the Eclipse Engine (which has become outdated-looking very fast, lulz).

 

[Roguey]

It's all about maximizing return on investment, DA:O took too many years and ME very likely made more despite (maybe) having fewer numbers.

But most of those years were just Gaider sitting in a basement writing lore, plus the one-time cost of making the Eclipse Engine (which has become outdated-looking very fast, lulz).

Gaider and his minions ("the estrogen brigade" as Gaider says they're called within the studio). Plus on his blog Brent Knowles mentioned they had to start over several times and the team was a mess because of so many people leaving/joining/leaving again.

 

[Angthoron]

Speaking of sales figures, didn't that interview Larian had for Codex say that their total DKS sales figures are close to the sales figures of DA: O? I suppose that might be PC-only, but considering Bio has the EA's publishing and advertising might to back them, that's pretty fucking dire for them if a media underdog manages to get similar numbers. (Yay, Larian, though!)

He said "We even outsold or came close to outselling Dragon Age in some territories" not necessarily total. I doubt it's even close in North America.

Oh yeah, that's the quote. Suppose you're right, yeah - still, considering they're not published by EA and never had the disgustingly aggressive campaigns that EA offers, that's an interesting bit of info. Of course, I think that much of the money that Bio makes these days comes not just from selling a game but from selling shitty DLCs as well. Ten dollar for an adventure pack that takes a week to make and that half a player base will buy? Ten million of near-free moneys!

 

[sser]

BioWare will be absorbed by EA someway or another at some point in time. That's my opinion. They won't quite flatten it like Westwood, but instead probably purge it from within so as to keep the BioWare name.

 

[TalesfromtheCrypt]

Yeah that's basicly what I meant. If Bioware games will yield profits of only a few thousand dollars, EA will quickly shut them down and find a more effective developer whose games promise a bigger return on investment.

 

[LoPan]

Even in lieu of what we have learned in this majestic thread I doubt we'll see the fall of Bioware any time soon. Sure these Biodrones are a spectacle to behold, but could they even be counted for half of ME3's profit?

Let's see how well ME3 sells before deciding that. Here's hoping it sells less than DA:O!

That's assuming the sales figures we know are accurate, and even if they are there is profit abound. DA2 probably had a budget of around 25mil (if not less, considering its short development time) and even assuming the game sold but 1mil (which the figures claim it at least passed) the investment comes out with profit. No matter how slim the profit, if there is profit to the investment I doubt it much matters if that profit is a thousand american dollars or a few million.

I don't know anything about the sales figures for DA 2 nor do I particular care about the issue, but what you wrote is wrong. Of course there is a difference if a game yields a thousand or a few million dollars in profit. If you invest 25 million and the profit is only a few thousand, or a few houndred thousand dollars, the investment will be considered a failure. Not a total failure, since you didn't lose money, but considering the risk involved with your multimillion dollar investment it is a failure.

If you had 25 million dollars, would take the risk to invest them into a product that potentialy yields only a few thousand dollars in return? This is not how succesful companies operate. You would invest your money into a product that promises profits multiple times higher than you initial investment.

Yeah, didn't quite think that one through. If it doesn't come back in great profit it would probably mean the next investment, if there is to be one, would be much lower since the lower the return the higher the risk. You make a game that nets even a 100k in profit and you'd probably have a hard time finding an investor to lay another 40mil into the sequel or any game remotely similar to it. In this manner Bioware-style 'rpgs' are likely to die out because to be viable they probably need at least a 25mil dev budget.

 

[Infinitron]

What they are competing against is outside developers. EA makes a profit regardless because they publish it. But if it becomes more expensive to use bioware to create a game than to get someone else to do it then bioware will quickly disappear. Since they are already in cut mode and wildly hastened development cycles, with EA mandating changes all the time, we can be pretty sure they are not making the grade. A short development cycle will lead to even worse games so it is pretty obvious bioware won't be around forever, since this is exactly what's happened to Origin and a million other devlopers.

Buy a dev house with some good popular IPs, rush out a couple installments on the franchises they own reduced cost to cash in on it then close the dev house when it stops working. Business as usual.

The difference with Origin is that in this case, the doctors appear to be fully complicit and cooperative. With Garriott there was always a lot of obvious angst beneath the surface.
They'll be given cushy sinecures at EA after Bioware is gutted.

DUDE WHY DID WE EVEN GO TO MED SCHOOL

 

[Wirdschowerdn]

Yeah that's basicly what I meant. If Bioware games will yield profits of only a few thousand dollars, EA will quickly shut them down and find a more effective developer whose games promise a bigger return on investment.

Except, there aren't hardly more "effective" developers out there. If they shut down Bio (Edmonton), they'll do this with consent of also abandoning the ME and DA IPs. If that's the plan, they'll do it. But right now, it seems EA still believes in the IPs. Plus the success of SWTOR might make EA even more "forgivable" for low profit yields of other Bio games.

 

[sea]

So they admit that the DA IP was more succesful than the ME IP but then they more or less tried to turn the more succesful one it into the less succesful one with DA2?

I really do not get that at all. The big reason Dragon Age sold was because it was a throwback to the Infinity Engine games and marketed as such (if not entirely in practice, then at least in spirit). Surely someone at EA would have noticed that the game did not sell for its incredible Devil May Cry-style action or hot dwarf sex (well, not that anyone would admit it), but for catering to a substantial niche of fans that they probably didn't even realize still existed? And instead of, you know, noticing that, they... well, did exactly the opposite of what would have made for a strong sequel, by effectively destroying the audience they had built up with the first game and putting out a shitty, rushed product that would alienate the remaining players as well.

You know, I was kind of trying to figure out why EA seem to be so schizophrenic regarding their intentions, the games they support, their attitude towards their fans, etc. Now I'm pretty sure they're just run by morons.

Since this is the last of the Shepard Trilogy ™, I pretty much see EA moving this to another developer (and then naming them "BioWare") or dropping it all together. Though if it remains profitable regardless of the numbers it may stay on. I just don't know where EA draws the line on profitable. Though lately they more than likely will continue on with ANY game that is at least profitable as they haven't been doing very good lately.

There's probably a good chance of that especially as BioWare are now sort of just being repurposed as EA's all-around "niche genre" developer, what with them working on the new C&C game. Also, BioWare are constantly hiring and being expanded with new offices - I think they're now up to at least 3 or 4, and at least one of them is devoted to smartphone games.

I think EA are keeping BioWare on for the prestige more than anything else. BioWare have a good reputation and, despite EA's attempts at sullying it, they probably think their image benefits from the BioWare brand. Besides, BioWare games, while not the biggest, are still important in catering to certain types of players (and there really is not a lot of competition in those markets), and EA are interested in fostering long-term IP. Getting rid of BioWare now would mean effectively abandoning years of work and millions of dollars down the drain. As a business, EA are not going to do that unless the alternative is more costly.

What they are competing against is outside developers. EA makes a profit regardless because they publish it. But if it becomes more expensive to use bioware to create a game than to get someone else to do it then bioware will quickly disappear. Since they are already in cut mode and wildly hastened development cycles, with EA mandating changes all the time, we can be pretty sure they are not making the grade. A short development cycle will lead to even worse games so it is pretty obvious bioware won't be around forever, since this is exactly what's happened to Origin and a million other devlopers.

I don't know. EA do that with basically every one of their developers. That's nothing new for them and I don't think it's a sign of anything being "wrong." If BioWare were truly a disaster for EA, I don't think they would have lasted this long.

 

[Infinitron]

So they admit that the DA IP was more succesful than the ME IP but then they more or less tried to turn the more succesful one it into the less succesful one with DA2?

I really do not get that at all. The big reason Dragon Age sold was because it was a throwback to the Infinity Engine games and marketed as such (if not entirely in practice, then at least in spirit). Surely someone at EA would have noticed that the game did not sell for its incredible Devil May Cry-style action or hot dwarf sex (well, not that anyone would admit it), but for catering to a substantial niche of fans that they probably didn't even realize still existed? And instead of, you know, noticing that, they... well, did exactly the opposite of what would have made for a strong sequel, by effectively destroying the audience they had built up with the first game and putting out a shitty, rushed product that would alienate the remaining players as well.

Like I said earlier in the thread, it's a matter of potential. Yes, DA:O sold more copies, but (EA believed) the game had reached its maximum sales potential. That there weren't millions more people out there who would buy and enjoy such a game.
With Mass Effect, on the other hand, you can make an argument that if marketed properly, it could sell TEN! MILLION! COPIES! to the military shooter crowd.

It's basically the same logic that makes companies think that "pirated copy = lost sale". Thinking about hypothetical audiences instead of about your paying customers.