Yet another site attempting to walk back their glowing review for this game.
Unless this is the person who wrote the review they are not walking back anything.
Unless they changed how they do their reviews they have one of a few reviewers make a review. This doesn’t mean that other members of the MMORPG.com staff don’t have their own opinions.
Also, the game is fine and can be fun. Warts and all. Doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be criticized for its failings.
No.
That doesn't fly when both individuals work for the same outlet. Whatever gets posted is absolutely considered the overall opinion of the site itself.
That's the other thing I don't understand when it comes to those who defend this game. You attempt to give it every plausible and even implausible benefit of the doubt, bend every rule or make 1001 excuses for the sake of this game. Are we now supposed to consider the reviews of every single site online the opinion of the individual reviewer and NOT the company that employs them?
Nonsense!
Well you just march into their virtual offices and tell them how it’s done! Maybe they’ll listen to you!
Rules? Are there really rules they must adhere to?
As far as the rest of your post, you are welcome to your opinions but it feels like a rant.
Does it really matter if the reviews are unified with additional articles about a game? You could just as easily assume it’s one person’s opinion because I highly doubt an entire organization, no matter the size, gets together and hammers out one review to rule them all.
You could very well just read the review and determine if what they are saying coincides to what you like. You could also just form your own opinion.
To that point I’m playing it and it’s fine. I have my criticisms but it’s fun where it needs to be and I’m free to roll my eyes at the places I feel are ridiculous.
It’s Dragon Age because they say it’s Dragon Age. That’s like saying Witcher 3 isn’t Witcher because it’s different from the first game or Skyrim isn’t Elder scrolls because it’s not battlespire or Daggerfall.
It might not embrace what made the first game great but somehow we’ll all still be able to sleep at night. I certainly hope
You've stated that "DAV is Dragon Age because THEY say it's Dragon Age." That may be true, but if their "Dragon Age" isn't selling, underperforms, or fails to meet expectations, the general overall public consensus is that it most certainly IS NOT Dragon Age.
You used "The Witcher 3," "Skyrim," and "The Elder Scrolls Online" as examples to make a point. There's just one tiny little flaw with these examples:
THOSE GAMES ACTUALLY SOLD!
EXTREMELY WELL, I might add.
It's very easy to make a point or a statement when you succeed. Can the same thing be stated when you don't? Well, you can try, but the results speak for themselves.
If DAV was in fact an actual Dragon Age game, we wouldn't be having this discussion, and yet here we are. Bioware can make whatever claim they choose, and no matter how many outlets "curiously" call DAV "A return to form," that doesn't make it true.
Call my statement whatever you wish. Had DAV, or rather Bioware, actually made the game we waited 10 years to play, there wouldn't be anything to "rant" about.
That doesn't fly when both individuals work for the same outlet. Whatever gets posted is absolutely considered the overall opinion of the site itself. Two opposing viewpoints from the same outlet sticks out like a sore thumb and is considered a contradiction. You can't give a game a glowing review, then a few weeks later post another article which is far more critical, outlining it's flaws. That is supposed to affect the original review, otherwise, why post it at all?
That's the other thing I don't understand when it comes to those who defend this game. You attempt to give it every plausible and even implausible benefit of the doubt, bend every rule or make 1001 excuses for the sake of this game. Are we now supposed to consider the reviews of every single site online the opinion of the individual reviewer and NOT the company that employs them?
Nonsense!
That is not how reviews work. That is not how reviews have ever worked. The rules don't change for the sake of a single game. The individual who post their review represents not only their opinion, but the company or site they work for, which is the way it has always been.
No.
DAV is not so special that the rules don't apply to it.
The game is fine in your opinion, which in and of itself is great. However, the general consensus surrounding the game is anything but fine. DAV never caught on and had no positive word of mouth to propel it beyond the discourse seen practically everywhere the game is mentioned. Obviously, there are reasons for this. Where there is smoke, there is fire. On countless reviews I've seen across the internet, the very same sentiment is echoed:
This is NOT Dragon Age.
I came to the very same conclusion myself when I tried to play the game, only getting about 68% of the way through. While some may enjoy DAV, for me, it has no business calling itself "Dragon Age" when the devs themselves were clearly hellbent on making a very different type of game, only using the DA name for marketing purposes, as it would seem.
This was never going to succeed, and it seems quite clear that it hasn't.
Warts, I can accept, if the overall product shines. In the case of DAV, the very foundation itself is built upon the back of a game that was never going to be Dragon Age in the true sense, which is why it's problems stretch far beyond being just warts or blemishes.
I agree that DA4 sounds like it has made a mockery of the lore, I have said this on previous threads, but the opinion of a reviewer only stands in as the opinion of the site.
Sites only do one review so it is difficult for any site to have a collective opinion, I can remember a couple of games which had multiple input (maybe the prereview stage?), but I think only one person decided the score.
Games do get follow up articles and I agree that here and elsewhere there has been a pulling back from how good this game is, but not majorly so from this article. I don't see this article talking about the abuse of lore for example. Does overscoring reflect well on a site, of course it does not but you will see posters on here and elsewhere who do not think it was overscored even with the marginal "walking back" which others are seeing as "we hoped it would be better in this bit".
My controversial opinion is that DA3 already did "made a mockery of the lore" and that the game was pretty mid.
DA4 is just the reminder that we always understimate how bad a game franchise can really get.
I genuinely don't understand the hate of the game. I enjoyed it.
(I feel I say this with every game I play and enjoy. Yet I do understand that tearing down is easier for people than building up, so I think it is understandable from that perspective as to why people do it much more often)
That doesn't fly when both individuals work for the same outlet. Whatever gets posted is absolutely considered the overall opinion of the site itself. Two opposing viewpoints from the same outlet sticks out like a sore thumb and is considered a contradiction. You can't give a game a glowing review, then a few weeks later post another article which is far more critical, outlining it's flaws. That is supposed to affect the original review, otherwise, why post it at all?
That's the other thing I don't understand when it comes to those who defend this game. You attempt to give it every plausible and even implausible benefit of the doubt, bend every rule or make 1001 excuses for the sake of this game. Are we now supposed to consider the reviews of every single site online the opinion of the individual reviewer and NOT the company that employs them?
Nonsense!
That is not how reviews work. That is not how reviews have ever worked. The rules don't change for the sake of a single game. The individual who post their review represents not only their opinion, but the company or site they work for, which is the way it has always been.
No.
DAV is not so special that the rules don't apply to it.
The game is fine in your opinion, which in and of itself is great. However, the general consensus surrounding the game is anything but fine. DAV never caught on and had no positive word of mouth to propel it beyond the discourse seen practically everywhere the game is mentioned. Obviously, there are reasons for this. Where there is smoke, there is fire. On countless reviews I've seen across the internet, the very same sentiment is echoed:
This is NOT Dragon Age.
I came to the very same conclusion myself when I tried to play the game, only getting about 68% of the way through. While some may enjoy DAV, for me, it has no business calling itself "Dragon Age" when the devs themselves were clearly hellbent on making a very different type of game, only using the DA name for marketing purposes, as it would seem.
This was never going to succeed, and it seems quite clear that it hasn't.
Warts, I can accept, if the overall product shines. In the case of DAV, the very foundation itself is built upon the back of a game that was never going to be Dragon Age in the true sense, which is why it's problems stretch far beyond being just warts or blemishes.
I agree that DA4 sounds like it has made a mockery of the lore, I have said this on previous threads, but the opinion of a reviewer only stands in as the opinion of the site.
Sites only do one review so it is difficult for any site to have a collective opinion, I can remember a couple of games which had multiple input (maybe the prereview stage?), but I think only one person decided the score.
Games do get follow up articles and I agree that here and elsewhere there has been a pulling back from how good this game is, but not majorly so from this article. I don't see this article talking about the abuse of lore for example. Does overscoring reflect well on a site, of course it does not but you will see posters on here and elsewhere who do not think it was overscored even with the marginal "walking back" which others are seeing as "we hoped it would be better in this bit".
My controversial opinion is that DA3 already did "made a mockery of the lore" and that the game was pretty mid.
DA4 is just the reminder that we always understimate how bad a game franchise can really get.
Whatever flaws "Inquisition" might have had, for me, it still retained the very essence of what I at least consider DA to be. Our world states were front and center, and the writing was still handled with the same care as the 2 previous games. DAV is a drastic departure in every way form DA3 in my opinion. Flaws, I can live with if the overall product still shines, but gutting the entire game, removing world states, as well as the overwhelming majority of RPG elements? Too many steps too far! I won't even get into the hatchet job DAV does with the lore.
Many had problems with DA3, but it clearly was pleasing enough to the core fandom as well as the general audience, otherwise it would have never sold as well as it did. It's very hard to argue with success.
Yet another site attempting to walk back their glowing review for this game.
Unless this is the person who wrote the review they are not walking back anything.
Unless they changed how they do their reviews they have one of a few reviewers make a review. This doesn’t mean that other members of the MMORPG.com staff don’t have their own opinions.
Also, the game is fine and can be fun. Warts and all. Doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be criticized for its failings.
No.
That doesn't fly when both individuals work for the same outlet. Whatever gets posted is absolutely considered the overall opinion of the site itself.
That's the other thing I don't understand when it comes to those who defend this game. You attempt to give it every plausible and even implausible benefit of the doubt, bend every rule or make 1001 excuses for the sake of this game. Are we now supposed to consider the reviews of every single site online the opinion of the individual reviewer and NOT the company that employs them?
Nonsense!
Well you just march into their virtual offices and tell them how it’s done! Maybe they’ll listen to you!
Rules? Are there really rules they must adhere to?
As far as the rest of your post, you are welcome to your opinions but it feels like a rant.
Does it really matter if the reviews are unified with additional articles about a game? You could just as easily assume it’s one person’s opinion because I highly doubt an entire organization, no matter the size, gets together and hammers out one review to rule them all.
You could very well just read the review and determine if what they are saying coincides to what you like. You could also just form your own opinion.
To that point I’m playing it and it’s fine. I have my criticisms but it’s fun where it needs to be and I’m free to roll my eyes at the places I feel are ridiculous.
It’s Dragon Age because they say it’s Dragon Age. That’s like saying Witcher 3 isn’t Witcher because it’s different from the first game or Skyrim isn’t Elder scrolls because it’s not battlespire or Daggerfall.
It might not embrace what made the first game great but somehow we’ll all still be able to sleep at night. I certainly hope
You've stated that "DAV is Dragon Age because THEY say it's Dragon Age." That may be true, but if their "Dragon Age" isn't selling, underperforms, or fails to meet expectations, the general overall public consensus is that it most certainly IS NOT Dragon Age.
You used "The Witcher 3," "Skyrim," and "The Elder Scrolls Online" as examples to make a point. There's just one tiny little flaw with these examples:
THOSE GAMES ACTUALLY SOLD!
EXTREMELY WELL, I might add.
It's very easy to make a point or a statement when you succeed. Can the same thing be stated when you don't? Well, you can try, but the results speak for themselves.
If DAV was in fact an actual Dragon Age game, we wouldn't be having this discussion, and yet here we are. Bioware can make whatever claim they choose, and no matter how many outlets "curiously" call DAV "A return to form," that doesn't make it true.
Call my statement whatever you wish. Had DAV, or rather Bioware, actually made the game we waited 10 years to play, there wouldn't be anything to "rant" about.
That’s a really flawed argument.
If they release a game in a series and it doesn’t sell then it’s just a game that wasn’t successful.
It can fail for any number of reasons, bad combat unfinished state of launch, poor voice acting.
All it means is that it was a poor entry into the series. Dragon Age 2 sold less than the first game or inquisition. Does that mean it wasn’t a dragon age game or that it wasn’t what dragon age fans wanted. I assert it was the latter.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
I’ll also add that my examples were based off of entirely different game play and in the case of the witcher, combat. Someone looking for a continuation of that game would be disappointed.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Dragon Age: Inquisition sales reached 6 million units.
There are similar ratios for Steam.
The thing is will VG match even 2 million? It easily will but then there are about 1 Billion more PC and console gamers now than in 2014 when Inquisition launched. So you have to take that into account.
Yet another site attempting to walk back their glowing review for this game.
Unless this is the person who wrote the review they are not walking back anything.
Unless they changed how they do their reviews they have one of a few reviewers make a review. This doesn’t mean that other members of the MMORPG.com staff don’t have their own opinions.
Also, the game is fine and can be fun. Warts and all. Doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be criticized for its failings.
No.
That doesn't fly when both individuals work for the same outlet. Whatever gets posted is absolutely considered the overall opinion of the site itself.
That's the other thing I don't understand when it comes to those who defend this game. You attempt to give it every plausible and even implausible benefit of the doubt, bend every rule or make 1001 excuses for the sake of this game. Are we now supposed to consider the reviews of every single site online the opinion of the individual reviewer and NOT the company that employs them?
Nonsense!
Well you just march into their virtual offices and tell them how it’s done! Maybe they’ll listen to you!
Rules? Are there really rules they must adhere to?
As far as the rest of your post, you are welcome to your opinions but it feels like a rant.
Does it really matter if the reviews are unified with additional articles about a game? You could just as easily assume it’s one person’s opinion because I highly doubt an entire organization, no matter the size, gets together and hammers out one review to rule them all.
You could very well just read the review and determine if what they are saying coincides to what you like. You could also just form your own opinion.
To that point I’m playing it and it’s fine. I have my criticisms but it’s fun where it needs to be and I’m free to roll my eyes at the places I feel are ridiculous.
It’s Dragon Age because they say it’s Dragon Age. That’s like saying Witcher 3 isn’t Witcher because it’s different from the first game or Skyrim isn’t Elder scrolls because it’s not battlespire or Daggerfall.
It might not embrace what made the first game great but somehow we’ll all still be able to sleep at night. I certainly hope
You've stated that "DAV is Dragon Age because THEY say it's Dragon Age." That may be true, but if their "Dragon Age" isn't selling, underperforms, or fails to meet expectations, the general overall public consensus is that it most certainly IS NOT Dragon Age.
You used "The Witcher 3," "Skyrim," and "The Elder Scrolls Online" as examples to make a point. There's just one tiny little flaw with these examples:
THOSE GAMES ACTUALLY SOLD!
EXTREMELY WELL, I might add.
It's very easy to make a point or a statement when you succeed. Can the same thing be stated when you don't? Well, you can try, but the results speak for themselves.
If DAV was in fact an actual Dragon Age game, we wouldn't be having this discussion, and yet here we are. Bioware can make whatever claim they choose, and no matter how many outlets "curiously" call DAV "A return to form," that doesn't make it true.
Call my statement whatever you wish. Had DAV, or rather Bioware, actually made the game we waited 10 years to play, there wouldn't be anything to "rant" about.
That’s a really flawed argument.
If they release a game in a series and it doesn’t sell then it’s just a game that wasn’t successful.
It can fail for any number of reasons, bad combat unfinished state of launch, poor voice acting.
All it means is that it was a poor entry into the series. Dragon Age 2 sold less than the first game or inquisition. Does that mean it wasn’t a dragon age game or that it wasn’t what dragon age fans wanted. I assert it was the latter.
You may call my argument "flawed" if you wish. The fact remains, there is no arguing with success because it speaks for itself.
The opposite is also true. If a product fails, do you continue making the exact same product hoping somehow things will change?
Sure, if you want to go out of business.
A failed game that's part of a franchise is FAR more than just a game that wasn't successful. That unsuccessful game can potentially destroy the entire series itself, which is an absolute no no for a studio that wants to continue to profit from said series.
If your last game failed, creating and selling a sequel becomes that much harder. That is, of course, if you even get the chance to make another game. Attempting to downplay a failed game that's part of a series doesn't work when people who didn't enjoy your last game can hardly be counted on to buy your next. People will have no faith or confidence that you can produce something that they might enjoy, let alone consider buying.
The stench of a failed product is very hard to overcome. Bioware is already well aware of this. Anytime the studio is mentioned, "Anthem" as well as "Mass Effect: Andromeda" is sure to be found somewhere in the article. This doesn't exactly inspire confidence.
Now, you have Bioware making recent statements concerning the tone and look of ME5. Why would they do that if not to distance themselves from DAV? Why would the team working on ME5 feel the need to distance themselves from DAV? The very same team that created DAV themselves have recently stated that they want to "incorporate more choices from The Keep in the next(?) DA title." They have big plans they've stated. Really? The very same Keep that they deemed irrelevant and went out of their way to distance themselves from?
Now why would they make such statements?
Hmm... Either way, I doubt anyone is buying it. They had several years to make THAT game, and they choose not to. Still, the entire argument is immaterial if ME5 fails, which would only strengthen the point that a failed game in a series is far more than just a failed game in a series. It may spell the END of that series. Scratch that. The end of TWO series and quite possibly the end of Bioware itself.
EA, a studio infamous for closing other studios would certainly never tolerate, not one, not two, not even three, but FOUR failures in a row!
You may call my argument "flawed" if you wish. The fact remains, there is no arguing with success because it speaks for itself.
The opposite is also true. If a product fails, do you continue making the exact same product hoping somehow things will change?
Sure, if you want to go out of business.
A failed game that's part of a franchise is FAR more than just a game that wasn't successful. That unsuccessful game can potentially destroy the entire series itself, which is an absolute no no for a studio that wants to continue to profit from said series.
If your last game failed, creating and selling a sequel becomes that much harder. That is, of course, if you even get the chance to make another game. Attempting to downplay a failed game that's part of a series doesn't work when people who didn't enjoy your last game can hardly be counted on to buy your next. People will have no faith or confidence that you can produce something that they might enjoy, let alone consider buying.
The stench of a failed product is very hard to overcome. Bioware is already well aware of this. Anytime the studio is mentioned, "Anthem" as well as "Mass Effect: Andromeda" is sure to be found somewhere in the article. This doesn't exactly inspire confidence.
Now, you have Bioware making recent statements concerning the tone and look of ME5. Why would they do that if not to distance themselves from DAV? Why would the team working on ME5 feel the need to distance themselves from DAV? The very same team that created DAV themselves have recently stated that they want to "incorporate more choices from The Keep in the next(?) DA title." They have big plans they've stated. Really? The very same Keep that they deemed irrelevant and went out of their way to distance themselves from?
Now why would they make such statements?
Hmm... Either way, I doubt anyone is buying it. They had several years to make THAT game, and they choose not to. Still, the entire argument is immaterial if ME5 fails, which would only strengthen the point that a failed game in a series is far more than just a failed game in a series. It may spell the END of that series. Scratch that. The end of TWO series and quite possibly the end of Bioware itself.
EA, a studio infamous for closing other studios would certainly never tolerate, not one, not two, not even three, but FOUR failures in a row!
NO WAY!!
You’re not paying attention but you’re certainly going on a diatribe.
No one is saying that they shouldn’t make changes if their game design isn’t working.
The game “is “ A dragon age game. It might not be the best or be what some players wanted but this is what the studio put out after a very tumultuous development process. I would offer that it was a process marred by management wanting a games as a service multiplayer experience.
I doubt they’ll be making another one for quite some time.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Corporate bean counters being what they are combined with the underperforming sales of DAV I think we can be reasonably confident that if there's a DA: Next it will be a very different game. I'm sure the ME:5 devs are taking notes, and if not the bean counters are.
It still sits 'mostly positive' on Steam, and 4 out of 5 stars on each the PS and Xbox. Not sure what people are going on about. It may not be fairing as bad as some may think it is.
Some here remind me of those that claimed Throne and Liberty would fail and disappear in 30 days from launch........Still going strong. The sky is not falling on every title released just because you don't like it.
It still sits 'mostly positive' on Steam, and 4 out of 5 stars on each the PS and Xbox. Not sure what people are going on about. It may not be fairing as bad as some may think it is.
I'm just going off the reports that it needed to hit 3-4 million sales to be profitable and estimates are that it's sitting around 2. I think 2.5 million initial sales were reported but apparently there was a rash of refunds with that number. Regardless, even if it has broken even corporate bean counters aren't in the business to break even. Even if it ends up being a cult classic if it's not millions of dollars profitable, you probably won't see another one. That's just how game publishers operate. Hollywood is the same.
I genuinely don't understand the hate of the game. I enjoyed it.
(I feel I say this with every game I play and enjoy. Yet I do understand that tearing down is easier for people than building up, so I think it is understandable from that perspective as to why people do it much more often)
I agree. It may not be a masterpiece, but it's a very enjoyable game and worth playing, just like the previous 3 DA games were.
I genuinely don't understand the hate of the game. I enjoyed it.
(I feel I say this with every game I play and enjoy. Yet I do understand that tearing down is easier for people than building up, so I think it is understandable from that perspective as to why people do it much more often)
Absolutely nothing wrong with telling us you are positive, but we have to equally accept the people with the negative as well.
It still sits 'mostly positive' on Steam, and 4 out of 5 stars on each the PS and Xbox. Not sure what people are going on about. It may not be fairing as bad as some may think it is.
I'm just going off the reports that it needed to hit 3-4 million sales to be profitable and estimates are that it's sitting around 2. I think 2.5 million initial sales were reported but apparently there was a rash of refunds with that number. Regardless, even if it has broken even corporate bean counters aren't in the business to break even. Even if it ends up being a cult classic if it's not millions of dollars profitable, you probably won't see another one. That's just how game publishers operate. Hollywood is the same.
I don't study charts or whatever I just play games, but a report said it needed to sell 3 or 4 million? It seems a company would be playing a risky 'game' to require that many sales to make a profit. Are we sure about that number?
I genuinely don't understand the hate of the game. I enjoyed it.
(I feel I say this with every game I play and enjoy. Yet I do understand that tearing down is easier for people than building up, so I think it is understandable from that perspective as to why people do it much more often)
Absolutely nothing wrong with telling us you are positive, but we have to equally accept the people with the negative as well.
That goes without saying it is a ratio thing hence the comment made.
That doesn't fly when both individuals work for the same outlet. Whatever gets posted is absolutely considered the overall opinion of the site itself. Two opposing viewpoints from the same outlet sticks out like a sore thumb and is considered a contradiction. You can't give a game a glowing review, then a few weeks later post another article which is far more critical, outlining it's flaws. That is supposed to affect the original review, otherwise, why post it at all?
That's the other thing I don't understand when it comes to those who defend this game. You attempt to give it every plausible and even implausible benefit of the doubt, bend every rule or make 1001 excuses for the sake of this game. Are we now supposed to consider the reviews of every single site online the opinion of the individual reviewer and NOT the company that employs them?
Nonsense!
That is not how reviews work. That is not how reviews have ever worked. The rules don't change for the sake of a single game. The individual who post their review represents not only their opinion, but the company or site they work for, which is the way it has always been.
No.
DAV is not so special that the rules don't apply to it.
The game is fine in your opinion, which in and of itself is great. However, the general consensus surrounding the game is anything but fine. DAV never caught on and had no positive word of mouth to propel it beyond the discourse seen practically everywhere the game is mentioned. Obviously, there are reasons for this. Where there is smoke, there is fire. On countless reviews I've seen across the internet, the very same sentiment is echoed:
This is NOT Dragon Age.
I came to the very same conclusion myself when I tried to play the game, only getting about 68% of the way through. While some may enjoy DAV, for me, it has no business calling itself "Dragon Age" when the devs themselves were clearly hellbent on making a very different type of game, only using the DA name for marketing purposes, as it would seem.
This was never going to succeed, and it seems quite clear that it hasn't.
Warts, I can accept, if the overall product shines. In the case of DAV, the very foundation itself is built upon the back of a game that was never going to be Dragon Age in the true sense, which is why it's problems stretch far beyond being just warts or blemishes.
I agree that DA4 sounds like it has made a mockery of the lore, I have said this on previous threads, but the opinion of a reviewer only stands in as the opinion of the site.
Sites only do one review so it is difficult for any site to have a collective opinion, I can remember a couple of games which had multiple input (maybe the prereview stage?), but I think only one person decided the score.
Games do get follow up articles and I agree that here and elsewhere there has been a pulling back from how good this game is, but not majorly so from this article. I don't see this article talking about the abuse of lore for example. Does overscoring reflect well on a site, of course it does not but you will see posters on here and elsewhere who do not think it was overscored even with the marginal "walking back" which others are seeing as "we hoped it would be better in this bit".
My controversial opinion is that DA3 already did "made a mockery of the lore" and that the game was pretty mid.
DA4 is just the reminder that we always understimate how bad a game franchise can really get.
Never go full DA4.
Just to be clear what did the developers do that was a mockery of the “lore.” Not talking art design or change in combat.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
It still sits 'mostly positive' on Steam, and 4 out of 5 stars on each the PS and Xbox. Not sure what people are going on about. It may not be fairing as bad as some may think it is.
I'm just going off the reports that it needed to hit 3-4 million sales to be profitable and estimates are that it's sitting around 2. I think 2.5 million initial sales were reported but apparently there was a rash of refunds with that number. Regardless, even if it has broken even corporate bean counters aren't in the business to break even. Even if it ends up being a cult classic if it's not millions of dollars profitable, you probably won't see another one. That's just how game publishers operate. Hollywood is the same.
I don't study charts or whatever I just play games, but a report said it needed to sell 3 or 4 million? It seems a company would be playing a risky 'game' to require that many sales to make a profit. Are we sure about that number?
I think the issue is the that they spent a lot of money over time since the game was in development hell.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
It still sits 'mostly positive' on Steam, and 4 out of 5 stars on each the PS and Xbox. Not sure what people are going on about. It may not be fairing as bad as some may think it is.
I'm just going off the reports that it needed to hit 3-4 million sales to be profitable and estimates are that it's sitting around 2. I think 2.5 million initial sales were reported but apparently there was a rash of refunds with that number. Regardless, even if it has broken even corporate bean counters aren't in the business to break even. Even if it ends up being a cult classic if it's not millions of dollars profitable, you probably won't see another one. That's just how game publishers operate. Hollywood is the same.
I don't study charts or whatever I just play games, but a report said it needed to sell 3 or 4 million? It seems a company would be playing a risky 'game' to require that many sales to make a profit. Are we sure about that number?
I think the issue is the that they spent a lot of money over time since the game was in development hell.
But which fiscal year did the cost of the development come out of. If we are talking years ago those losses are already gone and absorbed.
It still sits 'mostly positive' on Steam, and 4 out of 5 stars on each the PS and Xbox. Not sure what people are going on about. It may not be fairing as bad as some may think it is.
I'm just going off the reports that it needed to hit 3-4 million sales to be profitable and estimates are that it's sitting around 2. I think 2.5 million initial sales were reported but apparently there was a rash of refunds with that number. Regardless, even if it has broken even corporate bean counters aren't in the business to break even. Even if it ends up being a cult classic if it's not millions of dollars profitable, you probably won't see another one. That's just how game publishers operate. Hollywood is the same.
I don't study charts or whatever I just play games, but a report said it needed to sell 3 or 4 million? It seems a company would be playing a risky 'game' to require that many sales to make a profit. Are we sure about that number?
I think the issue is the that they spent a lot of money over time since the game was in development hell.
But which fiscal year did the cost of the development come out of. If we are talking years ago those losses are already gone and absorbed.
That’s a good point though I don’t know how they are figuring out what the game needs to profit.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
It still sits 'mostly positive' on Steam, and 4 out of 5 stars on each the PS and Xbox. Not sure what people are going on about. It may not be fairing as bad as some may think it is.
I'm just going off the reports that it needed to hit 3-4 million sales to be profitable and estimates are that it's sitting around 2. I think 2.5 million initial sales were reported but apparently there was a rash of refunds with that number. Regardless, even if it has broken even corporate bean counters aren't in the business to break even. Even if it ends up being a cult classic if it's not millions of dollars profitable, you probably won't see another one. That's just how game publishers operate. Hollywood is the same.
I don't study charts or whatever I just play games, but a report said it needed to sell 3 or 4 million? It seems a company would be playing a risky 'game' to require that many sales to make a profit. Are we sure about that number?
I think the issue is the that they spent a lot of money over time since the game was in development hell.
But which fiscal year did the cost of the development come out of. If we are talking years ago those losses are already gone and absorbed.
Don't know about to which fiscal year they added the losses to. Not that it really matters cause accounting can do magic but from an economic (reality) POV the hurt is done.
A few days ago I read that a Bioware employee leaked data. Game sold a bit over 3 million copies on all platforms. Expected sales 10 million. Revenue around 100m$. Development costs + advertisement estimated around +250m$.
Layoffs expected and management sent memo to focus back on gamers as sales target.
Don't know about to which fiscal year they added the losses to not that it really matters cause accounting can do magic but from an economic (reality) POV the hurt is done.
A few days ago I read that a Bioware employee leaked data. Game sold a bit over 3 million copies on all platforms. Expected sales 10 million. Revenue around 100m$ development costs + advertisement estimated around +250m$.
Layoffs expected and management sent memo to focus on gamers as target.
If that's true its bad, you can't truly trust leaks mind you. Lets see if they announce layoffs over the next few months that would prove it.
Comments
You've stated that "DAV is Dragon Age because THEY say it's Dragon Age." That may be true, but if their "Dragon Age" isn't selling, underperforms, or fails to meet expectations, the general overall public consensus is that it most certainly IS NOT Dragon Age.
You used "The Witcher 3," "Skyrim," and "The Elder Scrolls Online" as examples to make a point. There's just one tiny little flaw with these examples:
THOSE GAMES ACTUALLY SOLD!
EXTREMELY WELL, I might add.
It's very easy to make a point or a statement when you succeed. Can the same thing be stated when you don't? Well, you can try, but the results speak for themselves.
If DAV was in fact an actual Dragon Age game, we wouldn't be having this discussion, and yet here we are. Bioware can make whatever claim they choose, and no matter how many outlets "curiously" call DAV "A return to form," that doesn't make it true. Call my statement whatever you wish. Had DAV, or rather Bioware, actually made the game we waited 10 years to play, there wouldn't be anything to "rant" about.
My controversial opinion is that DA3 already did "made a mockery of the lore" and that the game was pretty mid.
DA4 is just the reminder that we always understimate how bad a game franchise can really get.
Never go full DA4.
(I feel I say this with every game I play and enjoy. Yet I do understand that tearing down is easier for people than building up, so I think it is understandable from that perspective as to why people do it much more often)
Many had problems with DA3, but it clearly was pleasing enough to the core fandom as well as the general audience, otherwise it would have never sold as well as it did. It's very hard to argue with success.
It can fail for any number of reasons, bad combat unfinished state of launch, poor voice acting.
All it means is that it was a poor entry into the series. Dragon Age 2 sold less than the first game or inquisition. Does that mean it wasn’t a dragon age game or that it wasn’t what dragon age fans wanted. I assert it was the latter.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
There are similar ratios for Steam.
The thing is will VG match even 2 million? It easily will but then there are about 1 Billion more PC and console gamers now than in 2014 when Inquisition launched. So you have to take that into account.
You may call my argument "flawed" if you wish. The fact remains, there is no arguing with success because it speaks for itself.
The opposite is also true. If a product fails, do you continue making the exact same product hoping somehow things will change?
Sure, if you want to go out of business.
A failed game that's part of a franchise is FAR more than just a game that wasn't successful. That unsuccessful game can potentially destroy the entire series itself, which is an absolute no no for a studio that wants to continue to profit from said series.
If your last game failed, creating and selling a sequel becomes that much harder. That is, of course, if you even get the chance to make another game. Attempting to downplay a failed game that's part of a series doesn't work when people who didn't enjoy your last game can hardly be counted on to buy your next. People will have no faith or confidence that you can produce something that they might enjoy, let alone consider buying.
The stench of a failed product is very hard to overcome. Bioware is already well aware of this. Anytime the studio is mentioned, "Anthem" as well as "Mass Effect: Andromeda" is sure to be found somewhere in the article. This doesn't exactly inspire confidence.
Now, you have Bioware making recent statements concerning the tone and look of ME5. Why would they do that if not to distance themselves from DAV? Why would the team working on ME5 feel the need to distance themselves from DAV? The very same team that created DAV themselves have recently stated that they want to "incorporate more choices from The Keep in the next(?) DA title." They have big plans they've stated. Really? The very same Keep that they deemed irrelevant and went out of their way to distance themselves from?
Now why would they make such statements?
Hmm... Either way, I doubt anyone is buying it. They had several years to make THAT game, and they choose not to. Still, the entire argument is immaterial if ME5 fails, which would only strengthen the point that a failed game in a series is far more than just a failed game in a series. It may spell the END of that series. Scratch that. The end of TWO series and quite possibly the end of Bioware itself.
EA, a studio infamous for closing other studios would certainly never tolerate, not one, not two, not even three, but FOUR failures in a row!
NO WAY!!
The game “is “ A dragon age game. It might not be the best or be what some players wanted but this is what the studio put out after a very tumultuous development process. I would offer that it was a process marred by management wanting a games as a service multiplayer experience.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Not sure what people are going on about. It may not be fairing as bad as some may think it is.
The sky is not falling on every title released just because you don't like it.
I'm on my 4th playthrough already.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
I think the issue is the that they spent a lot of money over time since the game was in development hell.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Though many DA fans will be thinking "if this is where the series is now do I care if another one comes out"?