29 replies to this topic

[jim_uk]

VGChartz is not credable source for stat anaylsis (it doesn't take into account other sources of data nor doesn't tell where it data comes from, these are two very improtant concepts important in any field of science), EA's numbers and BioWare's are. BioWare isn't telling the full story either, but we will have to see EA's sales records and compare them to the cost of producing DA2 to see if BioWare has truely made a profit.

You can get a clue from the wording of the two for one promotion, had they sold a million they would have said so, instead we have the ambiguous "breaking the 1 million mark" which could mean anything. They can't claim to have sold 1 million unless they actually have, to do so would be misleading investors and for that they could face very serious sanctions.

[LadyMilla]

VGChartz is not credable source for stat anaylsis (it doesn't take into account other sources of data nor doesn't tell where it data comes from, these are two very improtant concepts important in any field of science), EA's numbers and BioWare's are. BioWare isn't telling the full story either, but we will have to see EA's sales records and compare them to the cost of producing DA2 to see if BioWare has truely made a profit.

You can get a clue from the wording of the two for one promotion, had they sold a million they would have said so, instead we have the ambiguous "breaking the 1 million mark" which could mean anything. They can't claim to have sold 1 million unless they actually have, to do so would be misleading investors and for that they could face very serious sanctions.

Actually, they said that they sold a million:

Dragon Age II Platinum

Given that its predecessor, Dragon Age: Origins, sold in excess of 3 million units, there was little doubt that Dragon Age II would also be a hit. So it wasn't a major surprise when BioWare announced today that the sequel has sold over 1 million units since its March 8 launch in North America. According to the Canadian developer, the follow-up reached the milestone at a faster rate than its forebear.

"the follow-up reached the milestone at a faster rate" : no surprise here, DA: O created a strong DA fanbase.

Anyway, speaking of the reliability of VGChartz, the GameSpot article mentions that DA2 hit the 1 million milestone faster than the prequel - and DA:O sales data on VGChartz says the same. For me, that seems to be convincing and lends them a certain degree of credibility, but apparently, people who do not like the trend shown on VGChartz - that is, the sudden drop in DA2 sales right after the first week (something that only happened to DA:O after the holiday season, i.e. around the 8th week) - are eager to discredit VGChartz... well, time will tell who was right and who was wrong.

[brokenergy]

You're being cynical. It's a cleaver marketing ploy yes, to promote their games but it doesn't mean that DA2 is a complete failure of a game. The same thing happened with Origins too and people are failing to see that. The reason why it "failed" is because EA's marketing strategy relied too heavily on world of mouth. DA2 would remain as a example of how not to market games.

Oh and Lady, I'm gonna wait for EA's quaterly sales numbers than to bring up those useless stats. Those are much more important than whatever one site brings. Besides even if I wanted the data so badly I would still have problems with it as well. What was BioWare's budget? Was it diverted to ME3? Where have they wasted funds? etc. Bring up a site and state that DA2 has failed is one thing, but without more knowledge into BioWare's initial budget you could only go so far.

[LadyMilla]

You're being cynical.

I'm cynical because life experience taught me to be cynical. But I can understand your personal motive to discredit certain sources, after all the hard work you put into the "What is known about DA2" thread that you ran since September last year on this forum, it is no wonder that criticism directed at the subject of your pet project touches a sensitive spot.

As I said, time will tell if the 'reliable' EA sources will give you different figures that you can accept as unquestionable and non-manipulated. Myself, after the so called creative bookkeeping practices employed by certain Hollywood studios, I am skeptical when it comes to dealing with figures, sales information and marketing data published by someone, be it a company or person, who may benefit from presenting them in such a way that may be misconstrued, with minimum risk of getting caught.

[Halororor]

I'm cynical because life experience taught me to be cynical. But I can understand your personal motive to discredit certain sources, after all the hard work you put into the "What is known about DA2" thread that you ran since September last year on this forum, it is no wonder that criticism directed at the subject of your pet project touches a sensitive spot.

That's rich coming from the person who just said

but apparently, people who do not like the trend shown on VGChartz - that is, the sudden drop in DA2 sales right after the first week (something that only happened to DA:O after the holiday season, i.e. around the 8th week) - are eager to discredit VGChartz...

Nice assumption you've got there. I don't trust sites that don't tell you where they're getting their statistics from either. You didn't even say anything to counter that point of Brokenenergy's argument, instead just assuming he doesn't trust the site because he doesn't like that the game isn't doing very well. Be careful, unless it comes across that you just jump to argue with people because you don't like the fact that they like a game you're severely disappointed in.

As for me, I'm out and done with the DA2 forums on this site for now. There's no actual stimulating topics coming up for the game itself, just the same old repetitive, reiterated arguments about why some people hate the game and why some people don't.

[LadyMilla]

You didn't even say anything to counter that point of Brokenergy's argument, instead just assuming he doesn't trust the site because he doesn't like that the game isn't doing very well.

Actually I did say something that you opted to ignore.

"BW just announced that DA2 sold over 1 million units.
VGChartz data: 583.14k + 208.00k + 260.08k (xbox + PC + ps3) = 1,051.22k (over 1 million units). "

Strangely, the totally unrealiable and not-credible VGCharts data does not contradict those published by BW.

Again, to quote myself:

For me, that seems to be convincing and lends them a certain degree of credibility

.

I did not even claimed that they are the embodiment of reliability but unlike brokenergy I'm not willing to dismiss their statistical data because they do not publish a detailed description - other than what is quoted below - of how they get their numbers:

Again, this is what I wrote here:

This is all they have to say about their methods (unless there is a more accurate description somewhere else): "... VGChartz began to produce ground-breaking weekly charts based on estimates from retail partners and passive consumer surveys." The 'passive consumer survey' is a bit unclear for me, anyway since we don't have any other source of independent sales data, unless you assume that they intentionally falsify their charts, I think even if the numbers are not accurate, at least they show trends.

So it seems I am tentatively willing to give them some credit because they do not contradict official sales data. On the other hand, Brokenergy dismissed them outright as unreliable without even acknowledging that their sales numbers corresponded to what was announced by BW.

[jim_uk]

VGChartz is not credable source for stat anaylsis (it doesn't take into account other sources of data nor doesn't tell where it data comes from, these are two very improtant concepts important in any field of science), EA's numbers and BioWare's are. BioWare isn't telling the full story either, but we will have to see EA's sales records and compare them to the cost of producing DA2 to see if BioWare has truely made a profit.

You can get a clue from the wording of the two for one promotion, had they sold a million they would have said so, instead we have the ambiguous "breaking the 1 million mark" which could mean anything. They can't claim to have sold 1 million unless they actually have, to do so would be misleading investors and for that they could face very serious sanctions.

Actually, they said that they sold a million:

Dragon Age II Platinum

Given that its predecessor, Dragon Age: Origins, sold in excess of 3 million units, there was little doubt that Dragon Age II would also be a hit. So it wasn't a major surprise when BioWare announced today that the sequel has sold over 1 million units since its March 8 launch in North America. According to the Canadian developer, the follow-up reached the milestone at a faster rate than its forebear.

"the follow-up reached the milestone at a faster rate" : no surprise here, DA: O created a strong DA fanbase.

Anyway, speaking of the reliability of VGChartz, the GameSpot article mentions that DA2 hit the 1 million milestone faster than the prequel - and DA:O sales data on VGChartz says the same. For me, that seems to be convincing and lends them a certain degree of credibility, but apparently, people who do not like the trend shown on VGChartz - that is, the sudden drop in DA2 sales right after the first week (something that only happened to DA:O after the holiday season, i.e. around the 8th week) - are eager to discredit VGChartz... well, time will tell who was right and who was wrong.

Gamespot said they sold a million, EA didn't say anything of the kind. The link from Gamespots article takes us back to "breaking the 1 million mark".

[brokenergy]

@ Lady: As a student, one of the number one rules you have when it comes to writing essays and assignments is "reference your sources". Same rules apply to any professional journal or site that publishes data. VGChartz isn't a great site to use to state your claim, whether you like the game or not because it doesn't publish it's sources. Me hating it has nothing to do with my feeling about the game but rather about the transparency of the source.

Also you must feel really determinded to make assumptions about my feelings about the game, even though I never stated what I really felt about it. And what makes it worse that you deside to push me into the "fanboy" box (over my thread which tried to give info about the game), where I cry and cover my ears at the slightest mention of the word fail. My point was that bring up a bunch of numbers from source that doesn't publish where it gets it's data from is worse than using numbers provided by the actual developer/publisher.

So try your hardest to hurt me, really I don't care, I don't even visit this forum anymore. It just repeats the same old complaints from the official forums. I'll wait till everyone gets a breather, because they all need it.

[LadyMilla]

@ Lady: As a student, one of the number one rules you have when it comes to writing essays and assignments is "reference your sources". Same rules apply to any professional journal or site that publishes data. VGChartz isn't a great site to use to state your claim, whether you like the game or not because it doesn't publish it's sources. Me hating it has nothing to do with my feeling about the game but rather about the transparency of the source.

Also you must feel really determinded to make assumptions about my feelings about the game, even though I never stated what I really felt about it. And what makes it worse that you deside to push me into the "fanboy" box (over my thread which tried to give info about the game), where I cry and cover my ears at the slightest mention of the word fail. My point was that bring up a bunch of numbers from source that doesn't publish where it gets it's data from is worse than using numbers provided by the actual developer/publisher.

So try your hardest to hurt me, really I don't care, I don't even visit this forum anymore. It just repeats the same old complaints from the official forums. I'll wait till everyone gets a breather, because they all need it.

I'm not trying to hurt you, but you definitely came off in this thread as a miffed fangirl. "Whaaaa.... that guy called the marketing tactics employed by my fav company 'pathetic'... Nooooo!. You are the pathetic! It's marketing 101.'.

Second, in most of the cases you are definitely right, citing sources is advisable. But it is not an absolute requirement. If there are two measuring devices, one of which produces results based on known methods and the other one produces comparable results using a black box then after a while you can establish that the black box method is reliable enough without knowing what is inside. And you can use the second device to make estimates especially if the first devices produces only monthly statistical reports, while the black box issues weekly charts.

I am well aware of the controversy (or should I say, animosity) between VGChartz and the supporters of NPD Group. Still, there are professionals who use VGchartz - I guess if somebody who is described as a "veteran of Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan, Merrill Lynch, and Bear Stearns" (Robert Passarella) considers their charts as a useful tool, I cannot be blamed if I also lend them some credibility.

[chibievil]

its a shame this is only for pc versions as i only bought da2 on friday for ps3

Oh wells, I already have save files on pc, 360 for me2 so i am not that bothered. haha