Originally Posted by Gregoshi
You're right, luring more gamers into buying their game is exactly what they want. BUT, why are they only focusing on the new players?
Sure, they threw in 'TotalWar Controls', but are they really TotalWar Controls? If the game played like 'vets' feel it should, would there even be debate? I use the term vets to refer to people who are very familiar with the other 2 games. So fine, bring up the argument that this is a new game. But why does it appear there was an attempt to give the player the option to play how they have in MTW, but this isn't obviously achieved? Its not like they don't know how to accomplish it, they've done it twice.
So why do I mention so much that is obvious? Exactly what Cheetah is saying, and has said already. The needs of the few are being overlooked for the recruitment of many. Great strategy right now, right? Well what about later when their focus shifts even less from the Tactical Engine because all those who cared the most about it have since given up and moved on, thus not being the "balance" to CA's "check" of their performance in this area. Then the game becomes more like what? An RTS.
And how well would they perform in the RTS market...like Cheetah already said, they'd be a little fish in a big pond. This whole argument/post by him is to further shed light on this. Does it matter? Nah. ~:p Sorry m8, but we're in the 'few', and our needs/wants aren't as important as the many. The focus from a business point of view is good right now by CA, but once part of their market is gone (the MP players), and they have less of a loyal fanbase, they better have a very solid product, because there won't be many people left who "have to buy that". Then where's the stability?
And don't take it personal Gregoshi. Just used your words to make a point.![]()
Bookmarks