Dragon Age must sell 2 million copies

[Destroid]

This thread is now TL:DR, just wanted to point out that I know quite a few game devs, and they sail the seven seas just as frequently as anyone else.

 

[Jaime Lannister]

The company doesn't have a lost sale, since I wouldn't have bought it in the first place

not true with all pirates though

 

[Destroid]

I seem to recall the GalCiv 2 guy claiming that if 1 in 10 pirates had purchased the game, they would have had something like 50% more sales.

 

[Volourn]

DA has sold 450k mcopies in the first week alone on jjust consoles.. Quarter of the way to 2 million.. will it succeed... or will it fail.. in its quest? Let us find out... next time on 'Will BIO survive?'...

 

[Multi-headed Cow]

DA has sold 450k mcopies in the first week alone on jjust consoles.. Quarter of the way to 2 million.. will it succeed... or will it fail.. in its quest? Let us find out... next time on 'Will BIO survive?'...

I wanna know how the PC sales of DA stack up. Particularly, PC vs one console, either 360 or PS3.

 

[Grifthin]

Well judging from DLC sales they will easily make enough cash for EA to continue the franchise. Currently more than a million dollars made on the wardens keep DLC.

That means that 142857 people bought the DLC so far. Factor in the Stone prisoner (15 Dollars ) and future DLC and I think it's pretty certain that the game will be a massive success.

 

[Trash]

Stone Prisoner came free for everyone who bought the game.

 

[Grifthin]

Yes, but if you bought the game from someone else for example, then you could buy the stone prisoner content to use, the CD-Keys are tied to your bioware account. It's so that people who purchase secondhand have the option to get the stuff if they want it.

 

[Sisay]

I never quite understood why so many consumers greatly dislike pirates. Unless you own stock, you should fucking love pirates. Who do you think is keeping those PC game prices down? Why would anyone as a consumer care if the company lost a hypothetical sale or not? Try to think in your own fucking interest, that's what capitalism is about. Pirates are increasing your consumer surplus.

What, you think Troika would still be around these days if Arcanum wasn't leaked 6 months before release? Fat chance.

 

[Grifthin]

Sisay - Troika died in 2005. Just so you know.

 

[Elzair]

I never quite understood why so many consumers greatly dislike pirates. Unless you own stock, you should fucking love pirates. Who do you think is keeping those PC game prices down?

Hah! PC game prices are set to increase to $60 soon to be on par with consoles. Pirates don't seem to be helping much.

Why would anyone as a consumer care if the company lost a hypothetical sale or not? Try to think in your own fucking interest, that's what capitalism is about. Pirates are increasing your consumer surplus.

Well, if everyone who bought the game had paid for it, the publisher could have charged a lower price and still made the same amount of money. The regular consumers are subsidizing the pirates, and no one likes doing that.

What, you think Troika would still be around these days if Arcanum wasn't leaked 6 months before release? Fat chance.

LAWL!

 

[MasterSmithFandango]

Why would a dev lower the price of a game when they're getting a ton of sales at the current price point?

Oh, everyone loves buying our game at 60 dollars... we should lower it to 50!!! Two things: PC games probably won't see a wholesale rise to 60 from 50, I'd like to see where you got that information from. Two, why would a game that sell 1 million at fifty dollars drop their price to 40? That would represent a 20% loss in purely sales, with an even larger hit to their profit. It's an incredibly stupid argument to try and make.

 

[TheWesDude]

FSM, they do lower prices, why a few months ago i bought a game for $20 !!!

 

[MasterSmithFandango]

And when do they drop the price? When it's sales slow/halt at the current price point. They don't do it arbitrarily though. Look at the wii... some launch games are still 40-50 bucks because they still sell enough to justify that price point.

 

[GarfunkeL]

Lol Elzair for thinking that the publisher would sell the game for a lower price if it's "selling well". Hahaha. Publishers only lower prices when the game isn't selling anymore - when they want to get rid of the stock they still have around.

 

[Grunker]

Lol Elzair for thinking that the publisher would sell the game for a lower price if it's "selling well". Hahaha. Publishers only lower prices when the game isn't selling anymore - when they want to get rid of the stock they still have around.

You sad fucks don't know much about economics do ya? Well, I don't have time for a long course, but here's a fucking simple point:

There's something called optimal unit price. It's the point on a productionchart on which prices times the number of sold units is the highest.

See, fixed numbers like "1 million" and shit like that don't got fuck to do with it. The companies are looking for the optimal unit price, since that reflects the best amount of income. Of course, production capabilities and stuff like that factor into it, and macroeconomics too. But I didn't have time for the long course. Suffice to say: Don't speak with your ass. And when you say "Publishers only lower prices when the game isn't selling anymore - when they want to get rid of the stock they still have around" - you're talking with your ass.

 

[Shoelip]

I won't claim to know much about economics as I've never studied it intensely, but the flaw in your argument seems pretty clear to be Grunker. You're totally failing to take into account the fallibility of both those setting the prices, and those paying them. People are the opposite of Cranium rats. The more you get together the stupider they become. When you're target is the largest group possible, it's also the easiest to manipulate them, because it just takes a few idiots screaming fanaticism to set off a chain reaction of stupidity. Once that happens with something like say... deciding Modern Warfare 2 is the best game ever screw all Rational or Empirical evidence, well, what you get is allot of people who are desperate to fit in on a subconscious level all buying the game even if it costs more than they would have otherwise paid.

 

[Grunker]

I won't claim to know much about economics as I've never studied it intensely, but the flaw in your argument seems pretty clear to be Grunker. You're totally failing to take into account the fallibility of both those setting the prices, and those paying them. People are the opposite of Cranium rats. The more you get together the stupider they become. When you're target is the largest group possible, it's also the easiest to manipulate them, because it just takes a few idiots screaming fanaticism to set off a chain reaction of stupidity. Once that happens with something like say... deciding Modern Warfare 2 is the best game ever screw all Rational or Empirical evidence, well, what you get is allot of people who are desperate to fit in on a subconscious level all buying the game even if it costs more than they would have otherwise paid.

It's a good thing you don't claim to know much about economics, 'cause you obviously don't

Edit: Wow, that was bitchy. Really, I appreciate the effort, but there's few things I want less than to pour out long writings of academical bullshit on an internet forum.

 

[Shoelip]

I won't claim to know much about economics as I've never studied it intensely, but the flaw in your argument seems pretty clear to be Grunker. You're totally failing to take into account the fallibility of both those setting the prices, and those paying them. People are the opposite of Cranium rats. The more you get together the stupider they become. When you're target is the largest group possible, it's also the easiest to manipulate them, because it just takes a few idiots screaming fanaticism to set off a chain reaction of stupidity. Once that happens with something like say... deciding Modern Warfare 2 is the best game ever screw all Rational or Empirical evidence, well, what you get is allot of people who are desperate to fit in on a subconscious level all buying the game even if it costs more than they would have otherwise paid.

It's a good thing you don't claim to know much about economics, 'cause you obviously don't

Edit: Wow, that was bitchy. Really, I appreciate the effort, but there's few things I want less than to pour out long writings of academical bullshit on an internet forum.

Well, that's what I'm asking for. What's bitchy is starting an argument then saying you can't be assed to finish it.

 

[MasterSmithFandango]

Lol Elzair for thinking that the publisher would sell the game for a lower price if it's "selling well". Hahaha. Publishers only lower prices when the game isn't selling anymore - when they want to get rid of the stock they still have around.

You sad fucks don't know much about economics do ya? Well, I don't have time for a long course, but here's a fucking simple point:

There's something called optimal unit price. It's the point on a productionchart on which prices times the number of sold units is the highest.

See, fixed numbers like "1 million" and shit like that don't got fuck to do with it. The companies are looking for the optimal unit price, since that reflects the best amount of income. Of course, production capabilities and stuff like that factor into it, and macroeconomics too. But I didn't have time for the long course. Suffice to say: Don't speak with your ass. And when you say "Publishers only lower prices when the game isn't selling anymore - when they want to get rid of the stock they still have around" - you're talking with your ass.

A) You're a colossal prick.

B) I don't see anyone here claiming to be economic genius', however the logic is sound. When will a publisher lower a price? When it's not selling enough at it's current price point, and they feel a larger profit will come from a ten dollar drop. Despite all of the bullshit you spouted in this topic about macroeconomics, etc., you actually didn't address the issue at all. You come out sounding like (A) when you essentially just pretty up the two previous statements with high falutin' concepts like macroeconomics and production capabilities. So congratulations, that Econ 101 class really assisted your internet cred.

You fucking dumbass.

 

[Grunker]

Lol Elzair for thinking that the publisher would sell the game for a lower price if it's "selling well". Hahaha. Publishers only lower prices when the game isn't selling anymore - when they want to get rid of the stock they still have around.

You sad fucks don't know much about economics do ya? Well, I don't have time for a long course, but here's a fucking simple point:

There's something called optimal unit price. It's the point on a productionchart on which prices times the number of sold units is the highest.

See, fixed numbers like "1 million" and shit like that don't got fuck to do with it. The companies are looking for the optimal unit price, since that reflects the best amount of income. Of course, production capabilities and stuff like that factor into it, and macroeconomics too. But I didn't have time for the long course. Suffice to say: Don't speak with your ass. And when you say "Publishers only lower prices when the game isn't selling anymore - when they want to get rid of the stock they still have around" - you're talking with your ass.

A) You're a colossal prick.

B) I don't see anyone here claiming to be economic genius', however the logic is sound. When will a publisher lower a price? When it's not selling enough at it's current price point, and they feel a larger profit will come from a ten dollar drop. Despite all of the bullshit you spouted in this topic about macroeconomics, etc., you actually didn't address the issue at all. You come out sounding like (A) when you essentially just pretty up the two previous statements with high falutin' concepts like macroeconomics and production capabilities. So congratulations, that Econ 101 class really assisted your internet cred.

You fucking dumbass.

First off, the bitchy comment was directed at myself, hence the edit.

Second, I'm not going to address your dumbass-statement, since it's half correct.

But let me explain something: There's little more annoying than an academic fuckhead who thinks he's better than everyone else because "WOW GUISE HE STUDID ECONMICS!" However, when someone refutes my argument with "common logic" (i.e. they only lower the price when they can't sell stuff), what the fuck should I do? Just say: "Yeah, mothafucka, I can't refute that with common logic, so I'll just shut the fuck up."?

No way. Anyway, to translate what I said so you dipshits can understand it: Companies don't lower prices only as a mean to sell what they produce. They calculate prices so they can sell the most copies at the best price possible. The best price possible in this case not necessarily being the highest one.

Now, one last thing: The reason I mentioned the macro-bit wasn't to sa: "I have other arguments, but I'm not gonna mention them, because I'm a bitch." It was a disclaimer for other people who know economics meaning: "I realize this goes deeper, but fuck me if I'm going to have an elaborate discussion about world economics on a fucking internet forum."

See, I think discussion is very boring if people have to step down because of academics. They proove nothing if you're unable to explain them. My mention of them was my way of saying I'm not good enough to explain them elaborately.

You may think I'm the arrogant one, asshole, but you'd be pretty far off.

 

[GarfunkeL]

If the publisher has decided that 59.99$ is an optimal price, why the fuck would they lower the price to 49.99$ if the game is already selling like water bottles in Sahara?

 

[Grunker]

If the publisher has decided that 59.99$ is an optimal price, why the fuck would they lower the price to 49.99$ if the game is already selling like water bottles in Sahara?

I didn't say that. I said that if there's a probability they'll be able to sell more units, and the average production cost will be lowered by selling more, the reasonable thing to do is lower the cost of your game.

Now, to get back to the original conversation: If piracy is only fightable by providing a reason for the potential customers among pirates to buy the game, there's two things you can do:

1) Stop fucking them over.
2) Lower the price of your games.

Now the reason I'm rather smug is because the music and movieindustries are beginning to take the hint, which makes me pretty sure the video game industry will too.

But, I do accept the fact that I could very well be wrong - especially if you're right about the move to consoles. I doubt it however, and no matter what, considering the above, it is extremely blunt and stupid to just conclude: "Pirating for ideal is outright stupid."

People who say "pirating is stealing, fuck people who think they're fighting for something, and by the way I, myself, pirate anyway" without elaborating further can suck my hairy balls. Theres 20 of them on the dozen.

 

[MasterSmithFandango]

Ultimately there seems to have been some misunderstanding between us Grunker. *olive branch* Anyway, yeah, that's what I meant, you just said it in more detail and with more of an initially assholey tone, so anyway, yeah. Beef is squashed.

There are some companies that do things to prevent piracy. One is to make any online components need a unique cd key, another is to just offer "perks" to the people that decide to get the game legally. I think the stone prisoner idea wasn't necessarily bad (although launch day DLC sets my teeth on edge) in the way that it benefited people with a legit copy of the game.

 

[Grunker]

Ultimately there seems to have been some misunderstanding between us Grunker. *olive branch* Anyway, yeah, that's what I meant, you just said it in more detail and with more of an initially assholey tone, so anyway, yeah. Beef is squashed.

There are some companies that do things to prevent piracy. One is to make any online components need a unique cd key, another is to just offer "perks" to the people that decide to get the game legally. I think the stone prisoner idea wasn't necessarily bad (although launch day DLC sets my teeth on edge) in the way that it benefited people with a legit copy of the game.

I don't think I ever considered there to be a beef. But as I said, I admit to being bitchy about it, so yeah...

Anyway, DLC: It didn't really benefit the ones with legitimate games... Shale was to be included in the game anyway, so all it did was add extra hassle to the ones with legitimate version (which includes me now, by the way).

As an example my pal who has the game has found that his client is corrupted, which means when he checks downloadable content nothing shows up, even though he's redeemed the code.

Now, some jackass might say: "But isn't this the pirates' fault?" to which I would reply: "Of course it is." There is no other way to see it. But does it keep pirates away from accessing the content? Nope. So, like any DRM, the result is only hassle for legitimate clients.

This is why I believe the industry will be forced to move away from it. At some point, a greedy capitalist will come by and say: "I can make money on this!" That's essencially Google in a nutshell. They figured, if everyone hassled the clients, maybe they could enter the market, practically do everything the same way, be the same profitinterrested bastards, but just do it without fucking the clients over (at least that was the initial idea). And it worked. There's a whole scientific school for this kind of thing. They call it "venture capitalism."

But enough ranting. Suffice to say, I believe that what I do will change things. You are welcome to disagree with this, but don't use retarded comments like "you're just trying to excuse your stealing ways." 'cause it is far too easy. There's no way I can refute that statement so you might believe it.

But in truth, it doesn't really matter what you believe.