[Megathread] Mass Effect Andromeda

[Mirishka]

For a major AAA launch like ME:A? Yeah. The $40 was the development budget alone, that does not include associated marketing/advertising costs, which were likely similar.

In terms of revenue, take at least $40M off of that due to platform holder cuts (Valve, Microsoft, Sony each take 30%), plus additional cuts for retail stores, manufacturing/transportation costs for retail boxes etc. and that number slims down even further.

Again, the complete lack of any momentum/sales announcements since launch, and the lack of any positive mention of sales during the earnings calls speaks volumes about how EA views its lackluster performance. If they have numbers to brag about, publishers will absolutely brag about them as quickly and as often as possible. If they're not, it's because there's nothing to brag about.

I seriously doubt they spent $40 million on advertising because I didn't see ads for it in many places at all.

- - - Updated - - -

Why are you comparing a multiplatform AAA-franchise release with a title for two marginal handheld consoles?

Maybe because Zelda is an AAA-franchise release?

[Tenjen]

Wondering if the on-kill reload mechanic in the "killing spree" talent for sniper rifles works with the vintage heat sink mod. Using it on my isharay right now but not sure if its helping.

[Edge-]

I seriously doubt they spent $40 million on advertising because I didn't see ads for it in many places at all.

In advertising alone? Quite possibly not.

In total marketing costs? Very easily.

[Mirishka]

I can now kill shit in multiplayer, yay! Just pretty sad that they just decided to use the same ol’ wave bullshit system, gets pretty boring after a while =/ Some instanced missions, some boss fights, maybe little side stories… there is just so much they could had done >.<

Some of the MP matches are treated like scenarios/side stories, such as investigating reports of the Exalted krogan. There's just not a lot of fluff in game to make that readily apparent.

[Lahis]

Stop trying to defend EA. Their decision to shelf Mass Effect, after it managed to triple its budget in profits, is indefensible and unjustifiable.

If Mass Effect was EA's biggest scifi IP, they wouldn't be killing it.

But EA has Star Wars license. Mass Effect is insignificant compared to that, especialy now that Disney is promoting the shit out of it with the yearly movies and stellar TV show.

[Edge-]

If Mass Effect was EA's biggest scifi IP, they wouldn't be killing it.

But EA has Star Wars license. Mass Effect is insignificant compared to that, especialy now that Disney is promoting the shit out of it with the yearly movies and stellar TV show.

And Dead Space...right guys?....Right? : D

But yeah, with an exclusive lock on the Star Wars license for console/PC (with some minor exceptions) and the return of Star Wars movies, it definitely makes sense for EA to put far more focus on that while they have it. They can make Mass Effect games any time, they own the IP. But their window for Star Wars is limited, both in its exclusivity and possibly period, as they'd need to re-secure licensing on a per-game basis or renegotiate a broader deal with Disney.

[zealo]

Dead space really didn't sell that badly even for what the game was. But horror games and AAA title, which lead to suits trying to push it into even more of an outright shooter direction.

[Gaidax]

You literally learn from your dad's memories that the Andromeda Initiative was sponsored by a mysterious benefactor (probably The Illusive Man) to run away from the Reapers based on Shepard's word.

So it didn't even do that.

Of course there is a connection, but I think you get what I mean, we have new map, new world and new enemies/friends and Reapers are far far away and are a thing of a past at least for now.

Besides, I am pretty sure Illusive Man has nothing to do with it, it is likely some other entity.

[I Push Buttons]

And that's what you consider a "fail"? You need to seriously reevaluate what that word means.

A game fails when it can't make any money. Or when it makes a paltry sum of profits that doesn't justify the time and effort invested in it.

Those two figures linked there, account only for PC digital sales, and Physical sales across all 3 platforms. It does not include digital sales for the Xbox, or the PS4. It also doesn't include all the money they've made with the multiplayer microtransactions across all 3 platforms. And even with all of those factors in place, the game still sold over 1739000 copies. We can easily assume it went well above the 2 million mark if we add the digital sales of the two other consoles. At 60 bucks, we're talking of 120 million dollars worth of money.

And all of this was only during the game's first month (Also the PC figures are only from north america, not across the globe). The game was VERY successful financially, if it managed to triple its budget after only a month, and to that add in the money-printer of the multiplayer microtransactions.

If a game that costs 40 million dollars to produce, bringing back 120 million, (not counting the extra money from microtransactions) is what you consider a "failure", then according to your stupid backwards logic, Return of the Jedi was also a failed movie. It made significantly less money than Empire Strikes Back, so I guess it failed too. Right?

Stop trying to defend EA. Their decision to shelf Mass Effect, after it managed to triple its budget in profits, is indefensible and unjustifiable.

When you read about Fallout 4 selling 12 million copies and Witcher 3 selling 10 million copies, yes, 2 million is utter failure.

And they get nowhere near 100% of the price of the game... The console manufacturer/retailer/etc., easily take 40%+ of a game sale as their cut. And that budget doesn't even include marketing. So to say it tripled their investment is at best disingenuous and at worst absolutely not even close. Assuming they spent absolutely nothing on advertising (lol no) it hardly even doubled it.

If you were an EA investor and you have your shareholder report and it says "we made this game (ME Andromeda) that was poorly received and it sold only two million copies and we made this other game (Battlefield 1) that received universal praise and sold 15,000,000 copies........." Which type of game would you want them to invest your money in...? Its not rocket surgery.

[Tech614]

When you read about Fallout 4 selling 12 million copies and Witcher 3 selling 10 million copies, yes, 2 million is utter failure.

And they get nowhere near 100% of the price of the game... The console manufacturer/retailer/etc., easily take 40%+ of a game sale as their cut. And that budget doesn't even include marketing. So to say it tripled their investment is at best disingenuous and at worst absolutely not even close. Assuming they spent absolutely nothing on advertising (lol no) it hardly even doubled it.

If you were an EA investor and you have your shareholder report and it says "we made this game (ME Andromeda) that was poorly received and it sold only two million copies and we made this other game (Battlefield 1) that received universal praise and sold 15,000,000 copies........." Which type of game would you want them to invest your money in...? Its not rocket surgery.

This is why people need perspective and to realize numbers don't exist in a vacuum where everything is the same.

2 million sales for an AAA game published by EA is going to be considered a failure by almost every EA investor. I mean people realize they make FIFA and Madden on much smaller budgets then that and they sell 5+ mil EVERY SINGLE YEAR.

This is not some niche game plucked out of obscurity where the publisher is going nuts because it sold 2 mil when it was only expected to sell 500k. This is EA.

[frogger237]

Don't know why people have their panties in a twist, I, personally, liked ME:A and it was a cool way to start with a clean slate and not kiss Shepard's ass for saving the day instead- shoot me?

You literally become Super Space Jesus after 1 mission and it seems like alot more people are trying to ride your dick than Shepard ever had.

[Lahis]

Looks better. Shame they rushed it, now it starts to actually look good in these critical opening moments.

[Smitzelplix]

And Dead Space...right guys?....Right? : D

But yeah, with an exclusive lock on the Star Wars license for console/PC (with some minor exceptions) and the return of Star Wars movies, it definitely makes sense for EA to put far more focus on that while they have it. They can make Mass Effect games any time, they own the IP. But their window for Star Wars is limited, both in its exclusivity and possibly period, as they'd need to re-secure licensing on a per-game basis or renegotiate a broader deal with Disney.

It would be nice if Bioware revisited their earlier work and made another single player Star Wars RPG. Knights of the Old Republic was my gateway not only into Bioware games but the RPG genre as a whole.

[Edge-]

Looks better. Shame they rushed it, now it starts to actually look good in these critical opening moments.

Rushed, lol. Any "rush" was due to shit poor planning on BW's part.

But these improvements are very nice, big jump over the original code and a nice improvement over 1.05.

[Derah]

When you read about Fallout 4 selling 12 million copies and Witcher 3 selling 10 million copies, yes, 2 million is utter failure.

Not being as successful as someone else, is not the same as being a failure.

IF that was the case, then by your absurd metric, Star Wars Episode six was a failure of a movie, as it wasn't as successful as Episode 5.

And they get nowhere near 100% of the price of the game... The console manufacturer/retailer/etc., easily take 40%+ of a game sale as their cut. And that budget doesn't even include marketing. So to say it tripled their investment is at best disingenuous and at worst absolutely not even close. Assuming they spent absolutely nothing on advertising (lol no) it hardly even doubled it.

Only in the first month though. Fallout 4, Witcher, and any other game, keep selling copies over the years, Same as Andromeda. No matter how you try to spin this, they made LOTS of money with this game. Not as much as they were hoping. Not as much as other games. But still made lots and lots of money. To call the game "a failure" just because it wasn't as successful as they would hope is ridiculous. Its like me expecting my kid to have a straight A in an exam, but when he gets a B, while the kids of my neighbors got As, I then label my kid a failure. Getting a B, is still a good grade, not as good as an A, but still a good grade that marks the exam as a success.

If you were an EA investor and you have your shareholder report and it says "we made this game (ME Andromeda) that was poorly received and it sold only two million copies and we made this other game (Battlefield 1) that received universal praise and sold 15,000,000 copies........." Which type of game would you want them to invest your money in...?

That's because they're fucking assholes, who care only about making LOTS of money. I would understand their point of view if Andromeda was a game that made them lose money. After all, its a business, not a charity, they need to turn a profit somewhere. But if they're getting their profits, and they still decide to shut a good franchise down because it didn't give them as much as they wanted, then they're assholes. Plain and simple.

GTA V was a game that had a budget of well over a hundred million dollars, and managed to rake in over a billion dollar in its launch week, making it a VERY successful game. If GTA VI had a budget of 110 million dollars, but "only" manages to bring back 500 million in its first week, would you also label it as a "failure"? Would you accept, justify, and defend if Rockstar decided to shelf the GTA franchise? just because VI couldn't be the billion-dollar making game that V was?

Stop trying to defend fucking corporate cunts

- - - Updated - - -

If Mass Effect was EA's biggest scifi IP, they wouldn't be killing it.

But EA has Star Wars license. Mass Effect is insignificant compared to that, especialy now that Disney is promoting the shit out of it with the yearly movies and stellar TV show.

Still unjustified. They're assholes, plain and simple. There was no real reason to shelf mass effect.

Also, they only have the Star Wars license until 2020 last I heard.

[I Push Buttons]

That's because they're fucking assholes, who care only about making LOTS of money. I would understand their point of view if Andromeda was a game that made them lose money. After all, its a business, not a charity, they need to turn a profit somewhere. But if they're getting their profits, and they still decide to shut a good franchise down because it didn't give them as much as they wanted, then they're assholes. Plain and simple.

GTA V was a game that had a budget of well over a hundred million dollars, and managed to rake in over a billion dollar in its launch week, making it a VERY successful game. If GTA VI had a budget of 110 million dollars, but "only" manages to bring back 500 million in its first week, would you also label it as a "failure"? Would you accept, justify, and defend if Rockstar decided to shelf the GTA franchise? just because VI couldn't be the billion-dollar making game that V was?

Stop trying to defend fucking corporate cunts

You are literally demanding people make their own businesses and their own lives worse off so you can play a video game.

There is only one asshole here.

[Edge-]

Not being as successful as someone else, is not the same as being a failure.

This is true, but look at the sales numbers EA works with. 2-3M sales for their major franchises would be a disaster for them.

Dead Space got turned into one of their major franchises and what happened? It needed to sell 5M copies to break eve. That gives you an idea of the kind of sales numbers they work with and expect.

ME:A selling 2 million (assuming that's accurate) is absolutely underperforming for EA in every way possible, and EA's silence regarding the games sales numbers confirms this.

You're just being unreasonable now, dude.

[Derah]

You are literally demanding people make their own businesses and their own lives worse off so you can play a video game.

There is only one asshole here.

"Ohhh noes, we're making only hundreds of millions instead of thousands of millions......... our lives are ruined. RUINED I TELL YOU!!!!!!!"

Their lives are not worse off. If Mass Effect wasn't shelved they would not be worsening their company. The game was successful, it sold well (not as well as expected, not as well as other games, but it still sold well), but they decided to cancel it because they're greedy cunts, for them, making money isn't good enough. They must make LOTS of money, or else its bad business.

- - - Updated - - -

This is true, but look at the sales numbers EA works with. 2-3M sales for their major franchises would be a disaster for them.

Ya, because they're greedy cunts.

Dead Space got turned into one of their major franchises and what happened? It needed to sell 5M copies to break eve. That gives you an idea of the kind of sales numbers they work with and expect.

That would indicate poor management in their regard, and an inflated budget. Kingdom of Amalur faced a similar problem, where they went so over budget they needed to sell 3 million copies just to break even, and after 2 months of sales, they still couldn't reach that number.

ME:A selling 2 million (assuming that's accurate) is absolutely underperforming for EA in every way possible, and EA's silence regarding the games sales numbers confirms this.

And yet, nothing indicates that Andromeda was in the same boat. The game had a relatively low budget for a AAA production, 40 million dollars is not that much of a budget, considering most AAA games usually have between 70 to 100 million bucks in budget. Andromeda didn't need to sell 5 million to break even. It doesn't matter where or how you look at it, this game didn't make EA lose money.

That's the bottom line here: You produce a game to sell it. Either the game sells poorly, costing the company money, or it sells well, making the company money, or it sells VERY WELL, making the company lots of money.

EA is only focused on the third outcome, for them, the second one is every bit as bad as the first one, and that's why they're assholes. I can understand a game being shut down when they have the first outcome (they end up costing money, instead of making it), but when you have a perfectly serviceable product that managed to turn profits, yet you can it because the profits weren't as fat as you prefer, that's simple greed and gluttony.

You're just being unreasonable now, dude.

Ohh, I'm being unreasonable now, sheesh. People defending Electronic Arts, which is considered by almost everyone, the worst company in the planet. And I'm the unreasonable one for calling them out on their bullshit. Has the world gone insane? o_o

[Mirishka]

Yes, the game underperformed, relative to the strength of its brand. Yes, it sucks that EA is shelving it for now. I assume we can all agree on these points.

So can we get back to actually discussing the game?

[Tech614]

Yes, it sucks that EA is shelving it for now.

Not really.

The prevention of running a once great IP into the ground is a good thing not a bad thing.