Didn't they scrap further planned DLCs and basically throw in the towel?
That does not really answer his question, now does it, Volly?
They never gave sell-through figures, but it made $200 million in sales in the quarter of its release. According to the NPD, it sold 1.3 physical units in North American retail during its first month (roughly double those for international sales). For comparison, ME2 sold-through 1.6 million total for the first quarter of its release, so ME3 sold faster (~2.6m in one month vs 1.6m in about two).
They did have an expansion in the works, but canceled it because it would have diverted resources from DA3. Suspected lack of further interest may have also factored into that, but that doesn't necessarily mean DA2 and its DLC didn't make the money they were expecting to squeeze out of it.
That sounds like marketing newspeak to me. I'm not disputing that DA2 probably turned profit for EA though.
Sure it was little troll, sure it was. :: pats ::
http://social.bioware.com/%C2%A0http:/social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/315/index/10639008/1#10646275Hmm, I think I read somewhere that the Felicia Day DLC didn't sell very well.
Since Roguey is here I don't need to find sources.
David Gaider said:
I think the one who's butthurt is the guy that keeps on blindly defending them and using shipped numbers and quoting them as sales numbers.
Volly is (mostly) right in denying the financial "failure" parts (I'm not sure about TOR, that might have really bombed). The failures were more in the sense of not reaching an expected potential. DA2 was certainly a financial success, simply by using existing assets and putting in as little effort and resources as possible. It was simply very cheap to make and so even a certain backlash was not enough to impact profitabillity.You are an impressivedoxiedoxer Roguey.
I don't really get the sense that DA2 was a financial failure, as they blew through development in maybe 1/3 the time of DA:O. It was a failure in most other ways though.
