Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Game News Dragon Age II selling so well - play Mass Effect 2 for FREE

Volourn

Pretty Princess
Pretty Princess Glory to Ukraine
Joined
Mar 10, 2003
Messages
24,924
"They definitely aren't going to reach 4.5 million."

Where do you get that random number from? I know. From your ass. You are as silly as the geeses who claim that DA2 needs to sell 10mil copies or be a fialure due tot aking a quote out of context.

R00fles!
 

DragoFireheart

all caps, rainbow colors, SOMETHING.
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
23,731
Volourn said:
"They definitely aren't going to reach 4.5 million."

Where do you get that random number from? I know. From your ass. You are as silly as the geeses who claim that DA2 needs to sell 10mil copies or be a fialure due tot aking a quote out of context.

R00fles!


9/10

You make a good point for once. No one has any real numbers other than EA/Bioware. VGchartz DOESN'T fucking count.
 

Brother None

inXile Entertainment
Developer
Joined
Jul 11, 2004
Messages
5,673
Cynic said:
Sorry but the "for a Bioware title" excuse doesn't fly anymore. They are not an independent company anymore, they are an arm of EA. EA will have certain expectations when it comes to the sales figures of their acquisitions.

Well yeah, but EA isn't stupid. They know that when you make a slam-dunk sequel it will undersell its predecessor. But usually the budget is a lot lower too. That's what Obsidian lives on. And publishers lap it up, in principle, because the profit is still there.
 

dumuh

Educated
Joined
May 21, 2009
Messages
47
I don't know how much Dragon Age II cost to make, I'd like to think it didn't cost that much considering how much content they reuse throughout the game. For some reason though I doubt that, they probably spent a pretty penny on developing this. Considering the majority of the sales for this game are coming from consoles, I'd wager they've made less than $30 million dollars (game publishers only get about $24 per $60 retail purchase). My calculation doesn't include the price drops or special edition sales though.

The majority of games achieve most of their sales in the first few weeks, the exceptions are games that have good word of mouth, like it or not DA:O actually had this :?, DA2 doesn't.
 

janjetina

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Mar 28, 2008
Messages
14,231
Location
Zagreb, Croatia
Torment: Tides of Numenera
Brother None said:
Cynic said:
Sorry but the "for a Bioware title" excuse doesn't fly anymore. They are not an independent company anymore, they are an arm of EA. EA will have certain expectations when it comes to the sales figures of their acquisitions.

Well yeah, but EA isn't stupid. They know that when you make a slam-dunk sequel it will undersell its predecessor. But usually the budget is a lot lower too. That's what Obsidian lives on. And publishers lap it up, in principle, because the profit is still there.

That's just it. We have incomplete information on our disposal, so we can only presume and assume. I presume that Dragon Age 2 would really have to undersell not to cover the SLAM DUNK production costs. I think that they dodged that bullet with preorders and first week sales. However, I guess that the important thing for the future of Dragon Age saga is if the profits will reach target figures set by the management or not and we don't know what those target figures are.
 

serch

Magister
Joined
Mar 13, 2006
Messages
1,391
Location
Behind mistary, in front of conspirancy
Yeah, probably the game will make a profit but I think that the concept 'Dragon Age' is worth less today than it dit before DA2, so it's like when you sacrifice some of your assets to balance a bad year, you won't be able to do it again.
 
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Messages
6,207
Location
The island of misfit mascots
serch said:
Yeah, probably the game will make a profit but I think that the concept 'Dragon Age' is worth less today than it dit before DA2, so it's like when you sacrifice some of your assets to balance a bad year, you won't be able to do it again.

The value of the Bioware brand is far more important than the Dragon Age IP. Bioware is one of very few studios that can authentically claim that the majority of its fanbase are fans of the company, rather than IPs held by the company. People think of KoTOR, DA, ME as different versions of the product 'a Bioware rpg', and that's a good thing for the company. It means that every time they release a new IP, they get to take a very large chunk of those fans over to the new IP, potentially making it profitable on pre-orders alone.

Now the downside for 'creative' industries is measuring the value of what they have. When EA bought Bioware, what did they actually get? A collection of IPs? Alright, so they get a set of product names - but what's that worth? This isn't CoD-style covershooters where you can just get another team to come in and make the same product - if EA slapped 'Baldurs Gate 3' or 'KoTOR 3' on a game made by a completely unrelated studio, it would flop hard. Conversely, Bioware could take up an entirely new product name and their fans would cross over to it, just as if it were a continuation of their old IP.

So product names aren't worth 'that' much. What's left - ideas. Ok, that is actually worth something. But I'm not convinced that Bioware's settings are so unique that EA have purchased anything significant here - they're just generic sets of 'rpg-ideas'. Their mechanics aren't unique enough to 'own', and their settings are just stock space opera and stock fantasy - really really difficult areas to claim ownership of. You could map the entire political setting from Dragon Age onto a different fantasy world, give the races different names and marginally different histories, and it would be enough to avoid a lawsuit, simply because there are so many IPs out there using similar ideas that it's near impossible to match a particular setting element to a particular owner.

Moreover, the setting still doesn't define the 'Bioware rpg'. Look how they strung their 'get the 4 star maps' game design over several different settings and storylines. I'm not saying that they could keep doing that same design, but it shows how the Bioware studio could theoretically sell all of their IP and still make very very similar crpgs under different IPs, while the purchaser of their IPs might not be capable of continuing them in a way that will attract the fanbase.

After that you've got the staff contracts. All of which rely on the goodwill of the individual staff to stay with you. Presumably there's also an exclusion clause whereby the Bioware docs can't go into competition against EA for 5-10 years, to stop them from selling the studio then immediately quitting their EA jobs and starting up BioWhere Studios and taking their fanbase with them, leaving the docs as incredibly incredbily wealthy, and EA holding a bunch of useless IPs. But the rest of staff aren't similarly bound, and exclusion clauses are only upheld if they have reasonably short reach or duration, which means that the Bioware docs could certainly at some point quit and start a new studio, having already become massively wealthy from the sale to EA.

So what does this mean? Firstly, the Bioware docs have made their money. They purchase sum includes the value of Bioware taking into account profits into the short-term future. They're incredibly rich, are no longer risking their personal fortunes on the success of their products, and are set up regardless of how Bioware goes. In fact, there's a good argument that they'd BENEFIT from Bioware tanking, as they've taken their wealth already, and if EA closed the studio they could just start a new studio with their existing fanbase (many of whom will simply say 'yeah, their last few games sucked, but only because of EA - the new studio will rock'). They could even still advertise themselves as 'from the producers of KotoR/ME/etc', so long as they're referring to their personal working history rather than implying corporate ownership. Or they could just move to other jobs within EA.

But what does it mean for the impact of a game like DA2 that is profitable on initial sales, but runs from mediocre to tanking in public opinion, relative to Bioware's usual 'can-do-no-wrong' reputation? It means that the value of the 'Bioware brand' drops substantially. And when you get down to it, that 'Bioware brand' is the only piece of property that the studio has that means anything. It isn't the docs problem anymore, but it means that the value of the Bioware studio has taken a sizeable hit. Of course, the nature of such intangible property is that one good hit could cause it to rebound right back up. But it doesn't change the fact that Laidlaw and co will be seen to have temporarily caused a significant drop in the studio's value, and that a lot rides on the quality of their next couple of games.
 

serch

Magister
Joined
Mar 13, 2006
Messages
1,391
Location
Behind mistary, in front of conspirancy
I mostly agree with your view, but I wouldn't diss so fast the value of their different IPs or game series. Imagine Obsidian makes a fantasy RPG on that new engine of them, what would you think people would be more excited about, a new IP or Baldur's Gate 3? Both Bioware and their games worth something. Both Bioware and Dragon Age worth less today. :salute:
 

Yeesh

Magister
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Messages
2,876
Location
your future if you're not careful...
Suchy said:
Shit games selling well fuel the decline and can be genre killers. Look what happened to RPGs after the release of Diablo.
Dude, you can't possibly draw a coherent message from any single game's sales figures, since you think all games are shit anyway. What possible hastening of the decline can there be from a perspective like yours?

Jesus christ, another game as good as Diablo would be fucking awesome. If you see everything as shit, how do you even differentiate between DA2 and Fallout 3 and Diablo and BG2 and every-fucking-thing else? You might as well complain about how every single new cellphone is shit because none of them go all the way from your ear to your mouth any more. If that's where you're coming from, you can't just single out one as hastening decline.

Lyric Suite said:
Yeesh said:
Haven't we already come to terms with the fact that what's good and what people buy are not related in the least?

They are actually related to some degree. The point of course is to glee in joy as Bioware burns to the ground. What other reason do we need?
I honestly don't think they are related to some degree. I think that sometimes big sales and quality COINCIDE, but that is not the same thing. You can find plenty of rich girls who are excellent cocksuckers, but don't argue with me when I tell you the two features have nothing to do with each other.

Of course, I was thinking in terms of a Codexian definition of "what's good". Maybe that alters the equation. But you cannot deny that on those terms, praise of quality on this site and great sales number only go together coincidentally (if at all) and not causally.

janjetina said:
That's just it. We have incomplete information on our disposal, so we can only presume and assume. I presume that Dragon Age 2 would really have to undersell not to cover the SLAM DUNK production costs. I think that they dodged that bullet with preorders and first week sales. However, I guess that the important thing for the future of Dragon Age saga is if the profits will reach target figures set by the management or not and we don't know what those target figures are.
Ok, I'm sorry if this seems like a nitpick but you guys are killing me. SLAM DUNK means HOME RUN, it means you did something awesome, it means you really nailed it and you were stunningly successful, it means you achieved your goals without question. Obviously this is a very iffy concept to apply to DA2. If someone at EA or Bioware used this term to refer to spending less money on a shortened production cycle, they did so incorrectly or they were trying to say something else. Instead let's say "cheap-ass", "quickie", "truncated", or "probably cut in half".

Still, it will be interesting to see how much of an impact on future sales one some-what poorly received sequel will have. I think they've spent too much on the DA name to abandon it without a better reason than this. And of course we still don't know for sure what the sales of this game will look like when the dust has settled, let alone what the targets were.
 
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Messages
6,207
Location
The island of misfit mascots
Yeesh said:
SLAM DUNK means HOME RUN, it means you did something awesome, it means you really nailed it and you were stunningly successful, it means you achieved your goals without question. Obviously this is a very iffy concept to apply to DA2. If someone at EA or Bioware used this term to refer to spending less money on a shortened production cycle, they did so incorrectly or they were trying to say something else. Instead let's say "cheap-ass", "quickie", "truncated", or "probably cut in half".

No, the term 'slam dunk' is used around here to refer to a particular usage of it by Feargus in his Interplay/Black Isle days. He used to use the term to refer to the practice of taking an existing IP on an existing engine, and just adding a new campaign to it. The idea was that it's very hard to lose money on that concept, as you get to avoid much of the development costs, and potentially end up with a really strong product because you've been able to spend the entire development cycle working on the campaign, the C+C and the mechanics, rather than the technical stuff and the need to market a new IP.

He copped some flak over that, but it's a decent enough approach so long as not all developers are doing it. Arguably from 2001-2009 crpgs woefully underused existing engines and IPs, going to the trouble of developing or licensning new engines for every product, when you could have made another 2-3 games off each engine with comparatively little cost, and a much greater emphasis on a good campaign/story/gameplay. These days we're seeing a bit more of it, with the sequels to Mass Effect and DA, and the FO:NV spinoff from FO3.

So yes, in a broader context the term means what you say it means. However, we're using it as a stipulated definition to refer to a specific method of game development. None of your suggested definitions are suitable substitutes, because 'cheap-ass' and 'probably cut in half' have negative implications, where the 'Slam Dunk' approach has produced some of the greatest games in crpg history: Planescape: Torment was the ultimate Slam Dunk, where by the studio's own admission they could never have taken those risks on a more expensive game. Other notable 'Slam Dunks' include the Icewind Dale series, Fallout 2, FO:NV, Mask of the Betrayer, and Gothic 2.

Which of those games would you consider 'probably cut in half'? It's a solid approach to game development if used correctly, i.e. to permit greater risk-taking or a much greater focus on story/C+C/gameplay.
 

Volourn

Pretty Princess
Pretty Princess Glory to Ukraine
Joined
Mar 10, 2003
Messages
24,924
Many of the Gb games could eb considered 'slam dunks' too before it went overboard and it fizzled into over saturation of the market temporarily killing the idea of a successful D&D video game.

DA2 was definitely used as a 'slam dunk' - sequel to popualr game, cheap on development costs, and lots of easy money. Even if DA2 doesn't sell another copy, being able to sell 1mil+ in less than 2 weeks means much heavier profit than DA1 which took a billion years to make and probably cost a heck of a lot more to sell basically the same.
 

Manticore

Novice
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
16
Location
El Dorado
Volourn said:
Many of the Gb games could eb considered 'slam dunks' too before it went overboard and it fizzled into over saturation of the market temporarily killing the idea of a successful D&D video game.

DA2 was definitely used as a 'slam dunk' - sequel to popualr game, cheap on development costs, and lots of easy money. Even if DA2 doesn't sell another copy, being able to sell 1mil+ in less than 2 weeks means much heavier profit than DA1 which took a billion years to make and probably cost a heck of a lot more to sell basically the same.
Nope it is a failure,bioware wanted dragon age 2 to sell about 10 million units.
Never dragon age 2 will sell more than dragon age origins ,and dragon age origins was made in five years.They are realy despered ... :smug:
 

Yeesh

Magister
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Messages
2,876
Location
your future if you're not careful...
Azrael the cat said:
No, the term 'slam dunk' is used around here to refer to a particular usage of it by Feargus in his Interplay/Black Isle days. He used to use the term to refer to the practice of taking an existing IP on an existing engine, and just adding a new campaign to it. The idea was that it's very hard to lose money on that concept, as you get to avoid much of the development costs, and potentially end up with a really strong product because you've been able to spend the entire development cycle working on the campaign, the C+C and the mechanics, rather than the technical stuff and the need to market a new IP.

Which of those games would you consider 'probably cut in half'? It's a solid approach to game development if used correctly, i.e. to permit greater risk-taking or a much greater focus on story/C+C/gameplay.
What's under discussion is the development process, in particular in this thread the term's been used in reference development costs. Obviously those are what were "probably cut in half" (at least), not the game itself. I can't speak to the development history of IE games, but we already have a term for adding a new campaign to an existing IP and engine: Expansion. Alright, I admit that's a quibble.

Equally obviously, there's a great difference between what was done with the IE games, which indeed could be viewed as different adventures made with the same (evolving) engine, and DA2. Much complaining (and potentially a loss of sales) has ensued because DA2 plays so very, very differently than DA1. Can you say the same about any of the IE games, that they changed the core gameplay to the point where combat in one felt so different from combat in another? I'm digressing.

It seems to me that SLAM DUNK as you use it is a paradigm that rolls concept, development, and sales results all into one. Here's our plan, and it's so easy that it's a slam dunk for sure. You can't just say that the development of the game was slam dunk, because the term doesn't make sense when applied before the results are in. The question is, will DA2's sales meet that part of the definition?

I mean the term coined could have easily been AWESOME GAME, and while I guess if you're just going to say the same things as some guy said then you could say DA2 was developed as a AWESOME GAME. So fine I'll just quiet down.

Manticore said:
Nope it is a failure,bioware wanted dragon age 2 to sell about 10 million units.
Never dragon age 2 will sell more than dragon age origins ,and dragon age origins was made in five years.They are realy despered ... :smug:
I like your syntax, so I'm not even going to go into the 10 million thing again.
 

.Sigurd

Educated
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
758
Location
huahuahua
If The Old Republic be a failure (for EA like Warhammer was) you guys can bet that Bioware will have her death sentence.
 

Volourn

Pretty Princess
Pretty Princess Glory to Ukraine
Joined
Mar 10, 2003
Messages
24,924
"Nope it is a failure,bioware wanted dragon age 2 to sell about 10 million units. "

Every time I read this, the joke become funnier.


"If The Old Republic be a failure (for EA like Warhammer was) you guys can bet that Bioware will have her death sentence."

Every time I read this, the joke ebcomes funnier.
 

Stalin

Scholar
Joined
May 27, 2006
Messages
497
Location
Sweden baby!
.Sigurd said:
If The Old Republic be a failure (for EA like Warhammer was) you guys can bet that Bioware will have her death sentence.
Nguyen.jpg
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom