Support NeoGAF

[Afro Republican]

Ultima along with Wizardry, were the pioneers of the rpg genre in video games across the years, Ultima more-so. Several elements from Ultima 3 to 7 not only set the templates for many rpgs, but arguably, perfected many of them as well.

It was the Wrpg equal to DragonQuest in japan. But even influenced that series. It was a game with a very in-depth story, with deep lore, memorable characters, an interactive world, and a series of great imagination.

While issues started to flare up earlier after EA acquired Origin Systems, Ultima 8 is generally considered when the series started to falter greatly (as well as other Origin IPS that were mismanaged by EA at this time). 8's initial release was so bad a re-release had to be made, and the IX'th game basically destroyed the story, had many crashes, and was of poor quality. IN fact, the game was the result of EA shifting resources to the then new Ultima Online. Influential games like Ultima Underworld 2 were developed by other studios like Looking glass.

With Ultima Online being milked to death and several cancelled successors, EA eventually shuttered Origin. EA rarely bringing the series back up or supporting console re-releases, has led to a very long period of the brand becoming not only irrelevant, but almost forgotten.

I bring this up because Ultima is one of, if not the best RPG series ever created, basically reduced to nothing more than a memory or nostalgia. Most people have and will not ever play these games due to years of few legacy articles or sequels and next to no console re-release/enhancement support over the years. For fans, the series over the last couple years has been put on GOG but that's about it.

It's crazy how EA basically destroyed one of the most important and amazing RPG series of all time. As opposed to Square Enix whom, while DQ/FF aren't as good as they once were, they still push them out as the companies biggest franchises, while EA just threw Ultima away as well as other popular Origin ips and replaced it with other franchises like Madden and The Sims.

 

[Mr Hyde]

EA will end up in the Guinness World Records as the most successful company when it comes to kill off its own IPs.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

No, this one wasn't EA's fault. It was Origin's own fault. They were the first victims of Games as a Service when their company shifted to supporting Ultima Online. Garriot became pretty hands-off with the franchise, too, so maybe it was just the inevitable decay of a franchise finally catching up with them.

The reason why most people don't remember Origin and Ultima is...

I'll whisper it to you. Come closer.

Most PC gamers nowadays didn't start playing PC until Steam.

 

[Alexios]

Its historical influence remains what it always was. Without it there would be no Dragon Quest, no Final Fantasy, no System Shock or Thief, no Elder Scrolls, no modern gaming as we know it. It's historical, it doesn't change, it happened, it's in the past, it already shaped the industry, therefor it can't be ruined in the present or the future. Its influence after a point certainly stopped since there weren't even any games made (and the last few weren't influential). Not that re-releases would do much, most of the games are way outdated and wouldn't go well with today's crowd. Maybe a spiritual successor or real sequel could shake things up like Underworld Ascendant would have had it been a ground breaking game, but it turned out to be trash that should be taken out back and shot. The IP doesn't hold any ground today which is why they haven't tried putting out any new games but even made new RPG IP (like Dragon Age). I'd love to see a modern take on Ultima IV with the whole virtues thing but I doubt it'll ever happen.

 

[Afro Republican]

No, this one wasn't EA's fault. It was Origin's own fault. They were the first victims of Games as a Service when their company shifted to supporting Ultima Online.

EA is the one that shifted staff to Ultima Online, it's why Ultima IX was delayed and why IX ended up being trash so I would say it was EA's fault.

The reason why most people don't remember Origin and Ultima is...

Yet more people remembered Bards Tale, Betrayal and Krondor, Jagged Alliance, and the pre Fall out 3 Fall out titles.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

EA is the one that shifted staff to Ultima Online, it's why Ultima IX was delayed and why IX ended up being trash so I would say it was EA's fault.

EA had nothing to do with the creation of Ultima Online. They may have moved staff over to keep milking the cash cow but it was Origins who made the game in the first place.

Yet more people remembered Bards Tale, Betrayal and Krondor, Jagged Alliance, and the pre Fall out 3 Fall out titles.

The games you mentioned have been available on Steam for years (other than Fallout). Many have new entries in their respective franchises. Many have been sold in dual-packs and compilations since the days of $19.99 CompUSA bargain PC shelf.

The Ultima franchise enjoyed no such treatment. You can't even buy it on Steam.

 

[nowhat]

I think this is a funny/odd premise you are suggesting. How can something that comes later permanently ruin the historical influence of something? As an analogy, the later films were shite, but The Exorcist was and is a very influential horror film.

Kids these days may be oblivious to the good Ultima games (their loss), but that doesn't mean their influence couldn't be seen even today.,

 

[Belmonte]

Only an apocalyptic catastrophe could ruin the historical influence of Ultima and Wizardry. Every RPG has more or less of these two series in its DNA like the OP said.

But I agree that it is a pity these two series are fading in obscurity each passing year. Ultima is even more worrying since it seems Japan continues to have some love for Wizardry.

 

[petran79]

I'd say Origin is at fault too.
I mean WRPG like Might and Magic still go strong after 35 years, even with their spinoff Heroes of Might and Magic, despite the various setbacks and bad reviews some games got. They even had to change ownership and developers twice over the years.
Yet Ultima can not even make a decent comeback.

I still remember Ultima Exodus on the Amiga though I was to young to grasp the gameplay.

 

[JareBear: Remastered]

I would have loved a new Ultima Online. Amazing game

 

[Alexios]

I would have loved a new Ultima Online. Amazing game

This is supposedly from some of the same devs. Looks basically like UO with 3D graphics (well, better 3D graphics than that 3D edition of the original at least). Probably not what you wanted though, lol.

 

[anthraticus]

I rather the classic cRPG series like that be dead, as opposed to seeing what modern mainstream gaming would try and turn them into. (awesome action buttan romanceable elf butt sex simulators)

 

[ipukespiders]

For fans, the series over the last couple years has been put on GOG but that's about it.

And that is all I need and I will continue to replay this series. (Even though I own them on physical media).

 

[Sqorin Hammerfarf]

What's an Ultima?

 

[120v]

after Ultima 8 and 9 i'm doubtful there was much creative scope left in the series either way. 9 in particular was a five alarm dumpster fire, no way you can pin that all on EA

 

[Belmonte]

There is a promising Ultima-like game coming from Kickstarter, though. Don't know if you guys are aware of this one:

 

[#Phonepunk#]

I don’t think you can ruin any historical media by putting out substandard product. It’s not like those old games no longer exist. Ultima was very influential to the CRPG and JRPG genre and that’s just a historical fact

 

[cartman414]

Ultima along with Wizardry, were the pioneers of the rpg genre in video games across the years, Ultima more-so. Several elements from Ultima 3 to 7 not only set the templates for many rpgs, but arguably, perfected many of them as well.

It was the Wrpg equal to DragonQuest in japan. But even influenced that series. It was a game with a very in-depth story, with deep lore, memorable characters, an interactive world, and a series of great imagination.

While issues started to flare up earlier after EA acquired Origin Systems, Ultima 8 is generally considered when the series started to falter greatly (as well as other Origin IPS that were mismanaged by EA at this time). 8's initial release was so bad a re-release had to be made, and the IX'th game basically destroyed the story, had many crashes, and was of poor quality. IN fact, the game was the result of EA shifting resources to the then new Ultima Online. Influential games like Ultima Underworld 2 were developed by other studios like Looking glass.

With Ultima Online being milked to death and several cancelled successors, EA eventually shuttered Origin. EA rarely bringing the series back up or supporting console re-releases, has led to a very long period of the brand becoming not only irrelevant, but almost forgotten.

I bring this up because Ultima is one of, if not the best RPG series ever created, basically reduced to nothing more than a memory or nostalgia. Most people have and will not ever play these games due to years of few legacy articles or sequels and next to no console re-release/enhancement support over the years. For fans, the series over the last couple years has been put on GOG but that's about it.

It's crazy how EA basically destroyed one of the most important and amazing RPG series of all time. As opposed to Square Enix whom, while DQ/FF aren't as good as they once were, they still push them out as the companies biggest franchises, while EA just threw Ultima away as well as other popular Origin ips and replaced it with other franchises like Madden and The Sims.

Perhaps not FF, but DQ has been consistent.

 

[Afro Republican]

EA had nothing to do with the creation of Ultima Online.

EA literally dismantled the Ultima IX team to have more people working and supporting online and was responsible for Ix's delays.

IX was basically the straw that broke the camels back.

 

[KonradLaw]

It's historical influence? No. It's the most influential game series period, not just RPG one and nothing will ever change that. They didn't even manage to tarnish the brand's legacy much, because aside from that mobile crap game all their efforts to ressurect it were canceled.
Now, what EA definitely failed is to continue the series, but could they honestly manage it without Garriot? I doubt it, so it's better they don't try.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

EA literally dismantled the Ultima IX team to have more people working and supporting online and was responsible for Ix's delays.

IX was basically the straw that broke the camels back.

So you admit -- by your own analogy -- that it was just one factor out of many that "broke the camels back".

Agreed. Origin Systems was already suffering from a multitude of other issues and EA's treatment at the end of the 90s was one small facet of why they were ruined.

 

[Afro Republican]

So you admit -- by your own analogy -- that it was just one factor out of many that "broke the camels back".

Nice spin there.

Origin was bigger when EA brought them than after. Also Ultima 8 was a game that helped make Ultima ix break the camels back, a game also ruined by EA. That's why I said IX broke the camels back, because Ultima 8 was already TWO marks (8 had a re-release still poorly received) against the franchise.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Nice spin there.

Origin was bigger when EA brought them than after. Also Ultima 8 was a game that helped make Ultima ix break the camels back, a game also ruined by EA. That's why I said IX broke the camels back, because Ultima 8 was already TWO marks (8 had a re-release still poorly received) against the franchise.

That's not spin. That's literally what the analogy means: an overburdened camel -- which can normally bear the weight of many individual straws -- was finally broken by one more measly straw. I agree that EA's treatment was just one more thing on a long list of problems that Origins faced.

As much as I love your polls that railroad people into certain options and your antagonism for the people who do decide to reply to your threads, I think you're out of your depth on this one. Come back when your reading level has passed the 7th grade.

 

[Alexios]

It's historical influence? No. It's the most influential game series period, not just RPG one and nothing will ever change that. They didn't even manage to tarnish the brand's legacy much, because aside from that mobile crap game all their efforts to ressurect it were canceled.
Now, what EA definitely failed is to continue the series, but could they honestly manage it without Garriot? I doubt it, so it's better they don't try.

Garriot didn't do great himself outside EA, what a train wreck Shroud of the Avatar became

I'm thinking modestly budgeted stuff like Sui Generis could become better spiritual successors as long as the writers/quest designers get their act together to be somewhat on par and the world/npc/object interaction systems and simulations amped up. But I've not seen any project take that route, most efforts just adhere to the Baldur's Gate style of RPG school or similar or other sub genres like DRPGs etc.

Maybe the developers of the Divinity Original Sin games could do a game like that eventually, that'd be rad.

 

[strange headache]

Ultima along with Wizardry, were the pioneers of the rpg genre in video games across the years, Ultima more-so. Several elements from Ultima 3 to 7 not only set the templates for many rpgs, but arguably, perfected many of them as well.

The Ultima series died with Ascension, a hastily cobbled together game that was ruined because Origin's publisher wanted to shift focus on Ultima Online. By then EA owned the company. EA basically forced Origin to scrap their whole progress and rush out another unfinished product. This was exacerbated by the fact that Ultima 8 was already less than stellar due to EA's meddling.

Ultima 9 would have been a good product if it were given the love and attention Origin wanted to give it. The developers at Origin even released an unofficial patches to fix a lot of the bugs. You can guess for yourself as to why those patches were unofficial... Here's a hint, because EA told them not to work on it anymore. Origin was trying to do something great, a giant open world 3D game without loading screens, but EA was giving them unrealistic deadlines. This was during the time when EA's psychotic business practices practically ruined other well known studios like Bullfrog.

So yeah, I think it's safe to assume that we can shift the blame squarely on EA.

The reason why most people don't remember Origin and Ultima is...I'll whisper it to you. Come closer. Most PC gamers nowadays didn't start playing PC until Steam.

Oh, come on.

 

[Lionel Richie]

As opposed to Square Enix whom, while DQ/FF aren't as good as they once were, they still push them out as the companies biggest franchises

OP your thread is awesome and yeah EA absolutely butchered Ultima and that's sad. However, while it might be nitpicky to just single out a short part of your post, DQ and FF are NOT comparable at all. XI is probably the best DQ ever tied with V and that is not small feat for a series that pretty much has no bad games in it. Even the spinoffs are consistently great.

 

[Afro Republican]

That's not spin. That's literally what the analogy means.

Sorry man but you can't pull this spin.

Your last post was basically trying to "get me" into saying it wasn't EA's fault the Ultima franchise was fumbling and it was mostly Origins by acting as if I "admitted" that other factors led to the franchise being killed when I said "broke the camels bacK".

Sadly, that's horrible 3rd grade levels of deception. Ultima 8, as I said, was also a game that hurt the franchise, that's why I made the statement, not your fake BS reason you spun out of nowhere. To blame Origin also goes against interviews with Richard Garriot himself, you don't seem to know what you're talking about, I suggest you familiarize yourself with the Ultima franchise and it's history. Then once you get experience come back.

and

The Ultima series died with Ascension, a hastily cobbled together game that was ruined because Origin's publisher wanted to shift focus on Ultima Online. By then EA owned the company. EA basically forced Origin to scrap their whole progress and rush out another unfinished product. This was exacerbated by the fact that Ultima 8 was already less than stellar due to EA's meddling.

Ultima 9 would have been a good product if it were given the love and attention Origin wanted to give it. The developers at Origin even released an unofficial patches to fix a lot of the bugs. You can guess for yourself as to why those patches were unofficial... Here's a hint, because EA told them not to work on it anymore. Origin was trying to do something great, a giant open world 3D game without loading screens, but EA was giving them unrealistic deadlines. This was during the time when EA's psychotic business practices practically ruined other well known studios like Bullfrog.

So yeah, I think it's safe to assume that we can shift the blame squarely on EA.
.

Yep, pretty much.

 

[Afro Republican]

OP your thread is awesome and yeah EA absolutely butchered Ultima and that's sad. However, while it might be nitpicky to just single out a short part of your post, DQ and FF are NOT comparable at all. XI is probably the best DQ ever tied with V and that is not small feat for a series that pretty much has no bad games in it. Even the spinoffs are consistently great.

Well I was talking more sales/popularity than quality. DQ used to be a significantly bigger franchise in Japan. I mean yeah, it still sells great, but the last few entries haven't really been breaking 2-3 million which was usual.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Oh, come on.

Weren't you just telling me in the other thread that PC gaming had one foot in the grave before Steam came along? You even included charts showing the impressive profit growth since Steam showed up. It stands to reason that a huge influx of new customers was partially responsible.

Look, there's really nothing controversial suggesting that the PC juggernauts of the 80s and 90s were forgotten because the audience is now younger and/or started PC gaming after the heyday of those franchises. We could fill thread after thread of exceptional franchises that aren't remembered anymore.

 

[Alexios]

DQ used to be a significantly bigger franchise in Japan. I mean yeah, it still sells great, but the last few entries haven't really been breaking 2-3 million which was usual.

Not that this is the only inaccurate crap you have posted (here and in 99% of your other posts) as supposed uncited facts to back up your random hot take of the day when challenged by sensible_logic® but:

The last two, DQIX and DQXI, had sales of that level. DQIX reached around 4.3 million by 2009 and DQXI was already over 3.2 million in Japan when it topped 4 worldwide and has some way to go (like Switch).

What are the "last few entries" that didn't? Maybe some remasters, ports, spin offs, or maybe the subscription based MMORPG X (at around 1 million total across platforms iirc)? Let's see those goal posts move!

 

[Afro Republican]

sensible_logic

You don't have any sensible logic.

Mainline DQ entries used sell 2+ million with a single SKU, only 8 and IX have done that well in terms of modern releases.. Arguably you could fuse the PS4/3DS versions of Xi together too but doing that would prove my point. Heck even spin-offs used to do 1+ million, several modern spin-offs don't even hit 1 million in japan.

My point is that DQ hasn't done as well as it used to and that's an objective fact when most of the other entries with a single SKU often hit 2+ million, that's not a debate.

Japanese sales numbers are easy to get, I suggest you get educated. DQ isn't as big as it was, and the numbers show that. Especially when talking about consistency.

 

[Alexios]

I mean, IX was the last single SKU release so how does going multiplatform change the actual copies sold for the worse? Are PS4 yen not as good as 3DS yen or something? What about Switch yen, will those be worth less or more? That really only shows the market situation changed so no single system was good enough for the series to stay exclusive since and speaks of the platforms rather than the software which maintains levels of success you denied. IX already changed by going portable since at the time no single home console was deemed good enough for that either so it wasn't the first change. Still, according to this "logic", they'd have to double or triple the series' sales for you to accept they have the success you tried to deny so that every SKU reaches that 2-3 million threshold, or alternatively that next to nobody bought one or more of the releases so that 90%+ of sales came from just one platform. So, what the fuck, lol?! Nice moving the goal posts. Even if we were to take that approach, that's still only the last main entry (I mean, maybe X got a mainline number just like FFXI but clearly they're both MMORPG spin offs) rather than the last few since you just accepted IX did it anyway, lol. Unlike you I said exact sales and linked actual sources so maybe you're the one who needs to get educated on debating, lol. Keep them goalposts moving and that logic failing, you'll be comic forum mascot soon enough. And yes, obviously saying just not as big as it was is also moving the goal posts, I clearly refuted with proof that your bullshit about 2-3 million was flat out bogus so don't try to change the point now, I never discussed that.

 

[Afro Republican]

I mean, IX was the last single SKU release so how does going multiplatform change the actual copies sold for the worse? Are PS4 yen not as good as 3DS yen or something? What about Switch yen, will those be worth less or more? That really only shows the market situation changed so no single system was good enough for the series to stay exclusive since and speaks of the platforms rather than the software which maintains levels of success you denied. IX already changed by going portable since at the time no single home console was deemed good enough for that either so it wasn't the first change. Still, according to this "logic", they'd have to double or triple the series' sales for you to accept they have the success you tried to deny so that every SKU reaches that 2-3 million threshold, or alternatively that next to nobody bought one or more of the releases so that 90%+ of sales came from just one platform. So, what the fuck, lol?! Nice moving the goal posts. Even if we were to take that approach, that's still only the last main entry (I mean, maybe X got a mainline number just like FFXI but clearly they're both MMORPG spin offs) rather than the last few since you just accepted IX did it anyway, lol. Unlike you I said exact sales and linked actual sources so maybe you're the one who needs to get educated on debating, lol. Keep them goalposts moving and that logic failing, you'll be comic forum mascot soon enough. And yes, obviously saying just as big as it was now is also moving the goal posts, I clearly refuted with proof that your bullshit about 2-3 million was flat out bogus so don't try to change the point now, I never discussed that.

My quote was this:

but the last few entries haven't really been breaking 2-3 million which was usual.

You havent refuted crap, just a wall of useless spin text.

And as I said even the spin-offs decreased in sales, go on any DQ fan forum and try to say DQ is as big as it was and get laughed out the forum. DQ IX is an outlier and everything else is a drop.

Before DQ was frequently selling 2+ million per entry with some Spin-offs also doing 1+ million entries. DQ is not as big as it was. Not sure why you think otherwise.

 

[Alexios]

Yes, I quoted you before. You clearly claimed the last few entries didn't break 2-3 million when actual sources show both latest main entries (IX and XI) broke that and the last one also has a major SKU left to go. Nowhere did I say it's as big as ever so you're the one putting "spin" on that (really it's just flat out lying and posting sensational yellow bullshit as usual while refusing to ever admit you're wrong). I merely refuted the 2-3 million claim and linked sources proving it. Numbers, you know? You can do basic math, with a calculator at least, right? All available data show the sales of DQIX and DQXI are indeed bigger than the numbers you claimed they didn't break. Then you moved the goal posts about not counting multiple SKUs or whatever. Everything else is indeed useless text like most of what you ever have to write. Let me rephrase this. I don't care if it's as big as ever, I did not discuss that, I did not discuss spin offs, I only posted to refute your bullshit claim of 2-3 million for the last few entries with sourced and linked facts. Posting some truths in a sentence and sprinkling bullshit on top of it trying to pass it off as also factual is pretty transparent so please, if you don't want to be a complete joke stop doing it in every post, lol. But I guess you do want that, nobody can be that dense and not realize it, so, good job, you're good at entertaining everyone, I do hope you don't think people who laugh at it or engage agree with anything you say.

 

[Afro Republican]

actual sources show both latest main entries (IX and XI)

No it doesn't. For one you skipped a game. And you also added a qualifier I never mentioned. You have no idea what you're talking about and trying to add on to what I said so you can spin a new argument.

I said that, from the start, that DQ wasn't as big as it was and you argued against that, now you're claiming you "never" argued against it? See that's just bottom barrel lying right here.

My point is completely valid, and the original quote clearly says that DQ isn't as big as it was sales wise, which is objectively true, and that DQ used to consistently sell 2-3 million in range frequently, also objectively true. Considering that most of the best selling DQ games in japan are from the 90's and 80's this isn't really a debate.

On top of that you tried to add-spin offs to the mix (as an argument against my point) as well but even they sold more on average than modern day.

But since you backtracked and claimed "you never argued against DQ never being as big" which is a like you also admitted that you never really had an argument so everything cool

 

[Alexios]

I did not skip any game and as I said from the start even if we count a subscription based MMORPG just because it has a number that's still not "the last few" but rather just one, and not even the latest, so how dense can you pretend to be? Without all the shitty qualifications you want to add about SKUs, the point I was in fact arguing against is still your 2-3 million lie. I did not anywhere say DQ is as big as ever so no I didn't argue against that or backtrack, don't put words in my typing you compulsive liar, I merely said they broke the 2-3 million mark you claimed they didn't and proved it. If you wanted to just say they're not as big as before you should have skipped the lies or posted about a number they actually didn't break so something above IX's 4.2+ million and above DQXI's 3.2+ million (which would also disqualify many older entries but anyway, that's your deal if you wanted to do it, lol). But you didn't do that, you posted something below that, 2-3 million, and you didn't claim only one entry (the subscription based MMORPG X) didn't break it, but the last few, which is a lie. Also it's not like they regularly sold 5+ million before that, the differences are really not that great and IX which is among the last few regardless of any spin you want to put on it is probably among the highest selling entries, if not the highest. Again, posting some half truths doesn't make the rest of your bullshit true, you're still just a liar with no spine or debate skills.

Edit: here are some more numbers (from 2016) for posterity:
Dragon Quest (FC) - 1.5M
Dragon Quest II (FC) - 2.4M
Dragon Quest III (FC) - 3.8M
Dragon Quest IV (FC) - 3.1M
Dragon Quest V (SFC) - 2.8M
Dragon Quest VI (SFC) - 3.2M
Dragon Quest VII (PS1) - 4.1M
Dragon Quest VIII (PS2) - 3.6M (ultimate hits version was another 150k)
Dragon Quest IX (DS) - 4.15M (another 170k for ultimate hits version)
Dragon Quest X (Wii) - > 630k (wow, this subscription MMORPG displays how the last few entries can't break 2-3m, never mind one right before and one right after - which also has a major SKU left to go - did)

Even later gen re-releases (that came 5 to 15 years past the original so, not like separating the same time frame's 3DS/PS4/Switch SKU duh) seem fairly consistent since the SNES days and until the last few:
Dragon Quest I+2 (SFC) - 1.2M
Dragon Quest III (SFC) - 1.4M
Dragon Quest IV (PS1) - 1.2M
Dragon Quest IV (DS) - 1.27M
Dragon Quest V (PS2) - 1.5M (another 200k for ultimate hits version)
Dragon Quest V (DS) - 1.36M
Dragon Quest VI (DS) - 1.35M
Dragon Quest VII (3DS) - 1.24M

 

[KonradLaw]

Garriot didn't do great himself outside EA, what a train wreck Shroud of the Avatar became

I'm thinking modestly budgeted stuff like Sui Generis could become better spiritual successors as long as the writers/quest designers get their act together to be somewhat on par and the world/npc/object interaction systems and simulations amped up. But I've not seen any project take that route, most efforts just adhere to the Baldur's Gate style of RPG school or similar or other sub genres like DRPGs etc.

Maybe the developers of the Divinity Original Sin games could do a game like that eventually, that'd be rad.

Garriot has lost interest in SP games. All he wants to do are huge online worlds and unfortunatelly this is extremely expensive market. Shrough had petite budget and attempting to deliver big MMO on it was pure insanity.

 

[Freedom Gate Co.]

What are the "last few entries" that didn't? Maybe some remasters, ports, spin offs, or maybe the subscription based MMORPG X (at around 1 million total across platforms iirc)? Let's see those goal posts move!

You gave him the argument as soon as you made this statement. He intentionally makes his post broad and then drags you in a multi-post argument. so he can spin earlier posts back at you. He's done this so many times I don't know why some of you guys keep falling for it.

He intentionally brought in XI to entertain your argument of mainline games even though he never said mainline but only "entries" alone, and entertained your spin-off argument as well because he's messing with you. Most likely he was/will respond to your last post with Dragon Quest Monsters which is a spin-off that sold over 2 million, and use it to basically make his original post entirely valid. He already knew you didn't know it sold that and has basically just been dragging you along so you triple down on the same argument. He randomly brought in SKU's when he didn't need to for no reason other than to get you to continue the argument. Heck, several of the best selling games in the franchise have multiple SKU's because of "greatest hit" or equivalent re-releases making up the sales of some of those earlier games.

This is why almost no one else argues with him in his threads because he sets them up so that you can't possibly win it by having a very vague or broad post and hoping someone takes the post out of context to engage him in an argument they can't win. He's done this in multiple threads and I've only seen it backfire once (3DO thread.)

Garriot didn't do great himself outside EA, what a train wreck Shroud of the Avatar became

He also ran Wing Commander into the ground and was responsible for the issues of Ultima 8, OP is trying to make him blameless which is nonsensical. The best Ultima games during the later time period weren't even made by Origin.

 

[Alexios]

You gave him the argument as soon as you made this statement. He intentionally makes his post broad and then drags you in a multi-post argument. so he can spin earlier posts back at you. He's done this so many times I don't know why some of you guys keep falling for it.

He intentionally brought in XI to entertain your argument of mainline games even though he never said mainline but only "entries" alone, and entertained your spin-off argument as well because he's messing with you. Most likely he was/will respond to your last post with Dragon Quest Monsters which is a spin-off that sold over 2 million, and use it to basically make his original post entirely valid. He already knew you didn't know it sold that and has basically just been dragging you along so you triple down on the same argument. He randomly brought in SKU's when he didn't need to for no reason other than to get you to continue the argument. Heck, several of the best selling games in the franchise have multiple SKU's because of "greatest hit" or equivalent re-releases making up the sales of some of those earlier games.

Well he can't really claim he counted spin offs because spin offs didn't always sell 2-3 million back then either, only the biggest and most popular did, so you can't claim the IP has less power because spin offs don't pull 2-3 million consistently because then you're saying it never had power... Hell, main series games in the past didn't all do as good as XI, it's like the 5th top selling as of now and has a major SKU left so it will probably surpass at least one more and then I guess we can wait for the eventual PlayStation 10 remake to make a really fair comparison if he wants to count past remakes and originals together, lol. Besides, correlation doesn't prove causation so he still can't prove shit, what if Dragon Quest XI had been the shittiest game Square ever produced and sold 10k copies, how could we then fault the IP's power for it rather than the product so how can anyone just ignore the whole market situation when discussing anything like brand power and only strictly look at numbers ignoring everything else? Either way I'm just saying the last few did sell over 2-3 million, the rest conclusions about the brand power or whatever anyone can make for himself with the numbers I posted earlier.

 

[Freedom Gate Co.]

Actually in Japan IX is the best selling of the entire series with over 4 million. I mean yeah you could blame the lightning in the bottle that was the DS for that, but that doesn't change the fact it's the best selling DQ game in that region.

 

[Alexios]

Yes I said that too earlier (well not conclusively but then I posted numbers), I wrote XI there for 4th top selling (roughly tied with VI - edit: my bad, 5th best selling for now, III did 3.8), not IX

Anyway I'm done with the topic, anyone can look at the numbers I posted and decide for himself if the last few entries not breaking 2-3m is right or not with whatever qualifications and maths they like, lol.

 

[Freedom Gate Co.]

Yes I said that too earlier (well not conclusively but then I posted numbers), I wrote XI there for 4th top selling, not IX

Anyway I'm done with the topic, anyone can look at the numbers I posted and decide for himself if the last few entries not breaking 2-3m is right or not with whatever qualifications and maths they like, lol.

Eh, Xi, IX, same old lazy roman numeral in reverse, lol.