McNash wrote:I don't remember if it was Sam Bass or some other EALA employee in charge of C&C development, but he stated that back in the day singleplayer gamers represented 70 percent of the total gaming population of most C&C games. Then, during the C&C post-production phase, Chris Corry, lead designer, commented they had spent in patching and balancing C&C enough money to make another C&C.
While I may understand a developer to want to debug a game does it sound rational for a company to expend 50 percent of the money put in a videogame development to try to satisfy only 30 percent of the customers? If you were in charge of a business, any business, would you do such a thing? Or would you actually use the money to create more content in order to increase the sales?
Well, I mean, first off, the balance issue isn't specific to multiplayer. It's a disaster in singleplayer as well, that is mitigated only because the AI is never a good match against the player under any circumstance, and even when it outnumbers the player, often has to resort to cheap tricks to have a chance.
You can talk about C&C all you want, but BFG appeals to a tiny minority of the gaming market to begin with. It has 600 players on at one time, average. And that number is declining. It's a tiny game.
BFG will never attract more players than has now unless they make the base game tolerable. C&C, over its time, sold tens of millions of copies.
You could just walk into a store and buy it. You can't do that with Gothic.
Look at every single alpha game out there, all about the same size and funding as Tindalos. What is the common failure? Why do the games fail so often? Because they promise so much content, they neglect the base game, and then they run out of fund developing this new content and just fail. 9/10 indie games end this way, to the point they are rightfully shamed on steam.
Dawn of War failed and people stopped playing it because of the balance. This is fine if you play Eldar; but what if you enjoy Chaos? Or Imperial Guard? In both single player and multiplayer you were fucked. That's objectively poor game design, and the devs ignored it for years, "creating new content" until that didn't work anymore.
If the devs follow that line of thought the game will be dead in a year. They'll abandon, just as they did the past two games, also which are dead.
I have to ask you; how many people do you think the space marines attracted?http://steamcharts.com/app/363680
Honestly I've never seen the advice you recommend ever work, once, in the history of gaming. Do you think the business staff of EA, of all companies, didn't think of this immediately? They went against it because becoming known for creating shit games depresses sales for everything.
I mean, Tindalos doesn't have the best track record with this. Instead of fix their old games, "they created new content" with Gothic. Those two games are unplayable and dead now. What happens when they decide to abandon Gothic and move on once again?
Additionally, I'd have to ask why you would even want to create content if it's not playable. Massive middle finger to the customer, like selling someone a rotten apple and then blaming them for the taste.