How is historical accuracy "bad for sales"?

[Rosacrux]

The debate has been a heated one for ages, but it got completely out of control by the arival of the Egyptian faction description, which turned out to be an 15th century BC implant in the 3rd century BC RTW universe with no mentioning or otherwise of the Graeco-Egyptian culture of the era – and with a few medieval-Arabic style buildings in for good measure.

I am one of those who are extremely disappointed by the way CA is treating the people who’d made big bucks for them (that would be US) but in the same time I am more concerned about the way some people tend to interpret some things.

I’ve seen lots of that kind of talking in the .com forums and some here as well. It’s the “history is dull, CA needs to appeal to the mass market with cool units” bunch.

Even some respectable members of the community and the .org administration (well, since .org is only semi-dependant one could expect that much) are jumping on this particular bandwagon.

I wish to open up a conversation to actually discuss this issue. Do you think historically accurate is dull and shall drive potential buyers away? In what way? How is a fairly (we are not asking for 100% accuracy, that would be true only in dreamland but for a fairly accurate representation of the era the game is supposed to recreate) historically accurate unit lineup, “dull” and “uncool”?

And if “coolness” factor is what matters, why not include in the game transformers, pokemon, star wars stormtroopers, jedi knights, Rohan cavalry – hell, all those are “cool”, ain’t they”? Oh, wait, there are licensing problems, that’s why

Jokes aside, this is not good. First we see rabid dogs and flaming pigs. We say “ok, wtf, it’s just two units, we’ll mod them out or not use them, whatever”. Then a bunch of completely stupid units come up (with the infamous Bullshite Warrior – ie. Cornutus Iberiansis – and the horrendous Druids being the most prominent examples) that trample on each and every sense of historical accuracy. At the same time we start seeing the first signs of the abomination that is going to be Egypt (instead of Hellenistic Ptolemaic Egypt, officially called “Kingdom of the Lagids”, a right-out-of-15th century BC Pharaonic New Kingdom Egypt) but we believe them when they say “they’ll mix accurate Greek units with “cool” hollyweird crap to appeal to the masses”.

Then we see the final (?) depiction of Egypt… and the shit hits the fan.

For me, RTW is dead. After seeing “Egypt”, I change my previous statement (“I’ll buy this game no matter what”) to “I’ll buy it only when the modders come up with a version without kindergarten units and pharaonic Egyptians”.

Fair enough, I think. I am still going to cash out the 50 euros to buy this overhyped piece of shit.

[Leet Eriksson]

CA are going mainstream,i read yesterday on some newspaper that they will dumb down shakespear,and other historical texts for the younger generation to easily understand it,i mean things like"Br00t stabs ceasar in the back then ceasar sez:you too br00tus?"

Let me find the link for that...

[scooter_the_shooter]

well i dont mind i will buy this game no matter what i dont care what some of the units are like what about the acurate looking ones

spartan hoplites outdated who cares looks acurate
roman legionary
elephhants

more to come

[Basileus]

I had hopes for something amazing with RTW, after watching TC my hopes where very high. I dont know now though, the game will propably still kick ass but it could have been so much better, in my eyes CA has let us the hardcore fans down.

Im going to live with it, its only a game anyway but i expected far more from CA.

[The_Emperor]

Quote[/b] (Basileus @ June 08 2004,13:07)]I had hopes for something amazing with RTW, after watching TC my hopes where very high. I dont know now though, the game will propably still kick ass but it could have been so much better, in my eyes CA has let us the hardcore fans down.

Im going to live with it, its only a game anyway but i expected far more from CA.

I'm with you there... I was going to buy this game on the day of release but I think I may just hold back until I guage the general reaction from the Community.

[crushinator]

All these comments about CA ignoring the 'hardcore' fans is just silly. If CA decided to cater just to the 'hardcore' TW fans then there is no way they could afford to spend so much time / money creating a new 3d engine etc.... If CA were just making the game to try and sell to a niche market i guarentee it would still be using the MTW enginer ;)

Considering the time and money they must have spent developing RTW, they really have no choice other than to market it to the mainstream gamer (or sell just to the 'hardcore' fans and charge £1000 per copy of the game :P )

The average gamer has seen most types of games/genere's done before and so you need hooks/new features to grab the buyers attention (the 3d engine is obviously one). I'm sure everyone has noticed that every single preivew have focused on the units like elephants and flaming pigs. Why? because it gets the attention of the average jaded gamer who has never played the total war series.... it makes them think "wow, elephants, flaming pigs .... never played a game with these types of units. Sounds fun / new etc"

CA are trying to sell a shed load of copies of the game. Simply, that is their focus. If they succeed then it is only good for TW fans, as the next game will be bigger, better.

And if CA do deliver on their promise of 'the-most-moddable-game-yet' then i think everyone wins

Gameplay > historical accuracy ;)

[Rosacrux]

crushinator

I think your assertions are simply wrong. No, most reviews do not focuse on the flaming pigs - they do mention (each and every one of them) the elephants, as a "cool" thing, but I've yet to see anyone use the flaming pigs to attract people to buy this game.

Also, I really don't understand how including historically accurate units is "uncool" or will drive the casual gamers away from RTW?

First of all, STW-MTW attracted a lot of casual gamers. They selled pretty well (very well, actually) and that's not a "marginall" market they aimed to. They succeeded in getting a good market share with a decent product - that is what I call good business.

Troy - the movie. It was loaded with Hollyweird crap (and it massacred the Heliad) but even that way it has shown us that there was a large effort to make this as historically accurate as a representation of a myth could be. Not to mention the Gladiator, which was as historically accurate as a Hollyweird film can be.

Did those films aim at a niche market of history buffs? Or at a huge, mass, global market? If you tell me that the target audience for CA is larger than the target audience for those films, I'll think you'll have more than a loose end to take care about.

Also, if they succeed now, the next incarnation of the TW series shall be only worse, not better. That was the point with RTW, to be "better" than STW-MTW. Well, it's not. It has a fantastic game engine (apparently) much better gameplay, more polished overall appearance, incredible potential... but all that will be wasted by making this a "historical strategy battle simulation with a completely made up unit lineup and a load of bullcrap pured all over"

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Rosacrux @ June 08 2004,06:07)]I wish to open up a conversation to actually discuss this issue. Do you think historically accurate is dull and shall drive potential buyers away?

You know my answer.

Quote[/b] ]Fair enough, I think. I am still going to cash out the 50 euros to buy this overhyped piece of shit.

You've found the right designation for the current state of RTW.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (crushinator @ June 08 2004,07:55)]All these comments about CA ignoring the 'hardcore' fans is just silly.

That's your oppinion.

Quote[/b] ]If CA decided to cater just to the 'hardcore' TW fans then there is no way they could afford to spend so much time / money creating a new 3d engine etc.... If CA were just making the game to try and sell to a niche market i guarentee it would still be using the MTW enginer ;)

Funny. You forget that it was the success and money generated by STW and MTW that allowed them to invest on the 3d RTW engine.

Quote[/b] ]Considering the time and money they must have spent developing RTW, they really have no choice other than to market it to the mainstream gamer (or sell just to the 'hardcore' fans and charge £1000 per copy of the game :P )

Sure. STW costed £1000 because it was an Hardcore only game

Quote[/b] ]The average gamer has seen most types of games/genere's done before and so you need hooks/new features to grab the buyers attention (the 3d engine is obviously one).

No, STW or MTW surelly didn't need that, and they were very sucessefull.

Quote[/b] ]CA are trying to sell a shed load of copies of the game. Simply, that is their focus. If they succeed then it is only good for TW fans, as the next game will be bigger, better.

Couldn't they succeed with their adopted formula for STW?

Quote[/b] ]And if CA do deliver on their promise of 'the-most-moddable-game-yet' then i think everyone wins

If. Judging by the previous lies, that's not going to happen.

Quote[/b] ]Gameplay > historical accuracy ;)

Oh Could you explain why? My view is completelly opposite and justified. Is it yours justified too?

[ShadeHonestus]

As I've said elsewhere..this is just a poor decision, by people who shouldn't be making decisions, and it was made obviously off the wrong information. It'll be desribed in vague terms meant to appear esoteric (ie marketing), when in reality they are transparent as decisions one person or one certain group of people in the company want as their way...plain and simple.

There is just no logic that can stand the test for doing something like that to the Egyptians.


Can't wait for the next one...

They've started going down the misguided path of dumbing down. Next thing you know, they will make excuses for units because of the need to make the game "sexy." Hey, maybe thats behind the Cilician Pirates...nothin' screams elan and dash like pirates.

[RisingSun]

Except the pirates have at least SOME basis in reality/the time period, do they not? Except for the whole harpoon thing, I thought it was an okay unit.

But this Egyptian House of Horrors™ is going too far. And even if the faction was just horribly mauled, I could maybe live with that due to the great modding community. It is the lies and downright sleaziness that gets to me. They promised at least some historical Ptolemaic units, but now we see that was just a glorious pipe dream.

And I usually am one to trust. But once you decieve me once, I become sceptical. Decieve me twice, and my trust is gone. I can remember a few certain lies CA have told. A certain Viking Invasion comes to mind. I no longer trust CA on anything they say. Not one thing. Which means I doubt that RTW will be nearly as moddable as they claim, especially since now you would need a 3d editor to change units. I'm frankly sick of it.

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

[Trax]

If they are using all those strange units for RTW, who knows how much and in what direction have they changed the gameplay?
I find it hard to believe, that complicated wargame with tens of factors effecting the outcomes of battles can be popular among the traditional RTS audience.

We already know, that they have speeded up the battles and made the battles "much more rock paper scissors" type of game.

Who knows what kind of doubtful decisions are yet to be uncovered?

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

About making the game historically accurate being expensive, which somebody mentioned-I'd do the research for them, for free And I'm sure there would be a bunch of people here who'd help, just so we could make RTW the game that we know it should be.

[hundurinn]

Just got one question. How can history from 800 BC - 500 AD be boring? This is a period where empires rose and fall and huge battles were fought. Man now i'm confused

[Rufus]

I don't think I'm going to be able to buy RTW because my PC isn't advanced enough, and MTW keeps me busy enough. Maybe later when I can afford a new PC.

On the historical accuracy issue I'm sympathetic but it's a question of balance and the choices we have available as consumers. MTW is a great game, even though no country in Europe was ever in a position to conquer the whole continent in the Middle Ages, there was no "Italian" kingdom at the time, sometimes the English lords have Anglo-Saxon first names and Norman last names, etc.

Is there a better game or series of games available that strike as good a balance between gameplay (especially campaign strategy and battle tactics) and accuracy as the TW series has? (That's actually a real, not rhetorical question - my experience only extends to the Age of Empires series, which I thought was OK for what it's worth but far more limited and less compelling, in terms of gameplay and history, than MTW)

The question now is whether the liberties taken in the name of marketing for RTW tip the balance too far.

People have said, "well STW and MTW sold well enough" - in business, it's not enough to just do as well as you did before. To stay alive in a competitive and volatile business like computer games, you have to keep improving your profits, especially to compete with the shooters and the Sims, etc. Sorry to break that to those who like to rail against the capitalist machine. :)

And marketing people, if they're good at what they do, don't just sit there and make stuff up. Sadly, if someone in Activision's marketing department says, "This game won't sell enough unless the Egyptians look like Charlton Heston's costars in the Ten Commandments, and they dance like in the Bangles video," there's probably a good reason for it. Maybe they got blank stares in focus groups when they showed screen shots of Ptolemaic armies. Game development and publication is a tough, expensive undertaking, and successful publishers know how to achieve their business goals.

But let's say CA said, screw the marketers, we're doing what we want. They lose their publisher. RTW never hits the shelves. CA might go under.

And where does that leave us, the history-buff niche of the game-buying public? Well, no more TW series games. As to whether that's a problem for you, it depends on your answer to my question in the 3rd paragraph above.

[Trax]

Had they sent Activision to hell, they would have immediately been picked up by some other publisher, just for their amazing engine if nothing else. Thanks to this new engine they can sell more copies then STW and MTW together, regardless of what time period the new game takes place or what kind of units (accurate of inaccurate) there will be in the game.

[biguth dickuth]

Quote[/b] ]Sorry to break that to those who like to rail against the capitalist machine. :)

But i suppose you realise what the "capitalist machine" is doing to things we love, and i don't mean just the TW series.

Quote[/b] ]And marketing people, if they're good at what they do, don't just sit there and make stuff up. Sadly, if someone in Activision's marketing department says, "This game won't sell enough unless the Egyptians look like Charlton Heston's costars in the Ten Commandments, and they dance like in the Bangles video," there's probably a good reason for it. Maybe they got blank stares in focus groups when they showed screen shots of Ptolemaic armies. Game development and publication is a tough, expensive undertaking, and successful publishers know how to achieve their business goals.

The answer to this has already been given by others but i will try to repeat it once more.
The huge marketing that they require for this game has already been done via the amazing graphics engine, the advanced gameplay, nice-looking legionaires and elephants
From what i've seen, their marketing campaign focus is based mostly on all those things and that's why they are constantly displayed in screenshots and vids and previews.

How many pics of elephants, romans and greeks have you seen anf how many of egyptians?
What i mean is that they don't need the Ramses-egyptians to promote this game. They had rarely shown us any egyptians so far anyway.

So, if they are heading for an even bigger and even younger audience, the thousands-of-troops-storming-cities vids, the legionaires and the elephants will do the work for them.
Few (outside the community) will notice anything about the egyptians before bying the game, fewer will by the game just because they saw their favorite chariot-riding Ramses in one of the previews, and even fewer will not buy the game because they will be put off by an unknown (to them) faction, called "the Ptolemaic empire".

Therefore i still think that this marketing decision is just idiotic.

Quote[/b] ]But let's say CA said, screw the marketers, we're doing what we want. They lose their publisher. RTW never hits the shelves. CA might go under.

That wouldn't happen for reasons i just explained.

[A.Saturnus]

I find it sad that CA goes this way now. This seems like a hysterical marketing decision to me. RTW surely won´t be avoided by the mass market if CA sticks to more historical accuracy. The mass market will focus mainly of the 3D-engine and the epic style. MTW was not a mass market game because it was complex, rather challenging in it´s control and had strange looking 2d-objects. RTW has a modern look, is supposed to be more intuitive in control and has a graphic engine that wins prices and generally kicks ass (it even was on television). That alone should be enough to make RTW "cool". If that´s not enough to attract Warcraft 3 players, flaming pigs won´t do it either. On the other hand it may drive off some hardcore players that might buy RTW for it´s historical accuracy alone.
I don´t think Activision´s marketing people have thought that out well.

On the other hand, as sad it is, I will still buy RTW. The features it will have a pretty much impressive and I expect that there will be pretty good mods that focus on historical accuracy.

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Quote[/b] (RisingSun @ June 08 2004,17:01)]Which means I doubt that RTW will be nearly as moddable as they claim, especially since now you would need a 3d editor to change units.

Only for completely new units. And, as many people have said, the Egyptians don't need new units because they should have exactly the same ones as the greeks. It should be the work of moments to make the greek units available to the Egyptian faction.

As to the original question, I don't think even the Activision marketing department thinks that people are going to be put off by historical accuracy, but they do clearly believe that the casual buyer is more likely to be excited by the game if they pick up the box and see Pharonic egyptians.
Biguth Dickuth and others have made the convincing point that this game is going to sell on the Romans, not the Egyptians. However, much as we dislike their decisions, we do have to accept that the marketing people have more information than us. It therefore isn't really reasonable to call them idiots, because they might be right.

Schrodie's Cat

[The_Emperor]

In reality it shouldn't be up to us to MOD-in the Egyptian units they SHOULD already have anyway...

Surely it should be up to people to create an ancient Egypt MOD if they want to play that part of history, because they certainly don't belong there.

[Trax]

Quote[/b] ]but they do clearly believe that the casual buyer is more likely to be excited by the game if they pick up the box and see Pharonic egyptians.

Then they just could put the chariots on the game box and not have them in game. Like they did with Viking horns in VI

[The Wizard]

What I don't understand about CA is that they forget that the mass market doesn't give a shit about units.
Not
a
shit.

You want to know what has been the staple of the series ever since ol' Shoggy came out of the CA labs, katana drawn and armor shining? The battles.

Why do movies like Lord of the Rings, Gladiator, Troy, and the upcoming Arthur, Hannibal and the two Alexander the Greats sell?

The battles.

Does it matter to the average Quaker, Unreal Tournamentalist, WarCrafter, or Everquester if there is a horde of Iberians with sundisk helmets charging into legionaries, or a horde of perfectly accurate, British Iron Age B warriors with the right moustache, shoes, hair strand amount and hairdo? No. All he/she cares about is if the battles look like those from the Hollywood movies. What can be better than to try your hand at an epic, Gladiator/LotR/Troy-esque battle? At that point, it doesn't matter if there are orcs, trolls, and hairy-footed annoying mongrels charging and fighting, or legionaries, the British warrios as mentioned above, and perfectly accurate Spartans doing the activity mentioned above anymore.

The battles and how they work and play is what matters to the casual, avid gamer. If these are done very well, and they show these off as marketing, people will talk about the battles, far quicker than about RTW with hordes of flaming pigs, demigod elephants and Ibero-Egyptian Isis Warrior Priests.

So, honestly, I don't understand why CA doesn't just make the game reasonably accurate regarding the units. It's a small effort, it's secondary to the battles. The revamped strategical mode, the expanded diplomacy, the units; the consumer group which CA and Activision are concentrating upon will all take those for granted, as presents with the wonderful, epic, amazing battles.



~Wiz

[Trax]

One other thing to consider,CA.
The Alexander movie will be out in the autumn, and the common people will see how the Egyptians really looked at the time.
In fact Anthony Hopkins will be playing Ptolemaios I in the movie. He will be the narrator of the movie, as an old man and the king of Egypt. All the common people will know about the Ptolemies, the way they looked, the way they lived.

And then they will come on to your forums and ask: "who the hell are those Egyptians in your game?"

[andrewt]

People keep saying that gameplay > historical accuracy. That statement is just silly when it comes to the Egyptians. An example of gameplay > historical accuracy is it was impossible to conquer the entire Europe in the medieval period but it's more fun if you can. Or this faction historically wasn't strong with spears but they're too weak without it so let's make their spear units stronger than they historically were. I fail to see how that is evident in the decision to change the Egyptians.

How will mass market people be convinced to buy this game? Game box, word of mouth, gaming magazines and websites. What do people think when they think Romans? Legions, Rome vs. barbarians, Rome vs. elephants. The box cover will likely focus just on Rome. The screenshots and advertisements in the flap and back cover will focus on Roman legions fighting elephants and tons of barbarians. The gaming magazines and websites are all focusing on fighting elephants and tons of barbarians.

Screenshots of the Egyptians will be few and far in between. Mass market people will buy on the Romans, the elephants, the barbarians. Only so few will buy because of Egypt. In fact, the people most likely to buy because of CA's current decision will probably be hardcore New Kingdom Egypt fans. How many of these do you think there will be?

The reason I don't trust the marketing is because marketing department rarely makes the decisions once a product gets big. Usually, it's a senior executive and most, even in gaming companies, have never played games in their life. They're just career managers who don't understand games and are there for their management experience.

[Steppe Merc]

I was a 'casual gamer' when I first bought MTW, with a bit of little history knowledge. When I bought it I didn't say, "Damn, no flaming pigs." I didn't say "Damn, you mean something called Medeival Total War is based off of history?" I was intruged by the history, the Mamluks, the Jannisaries, the Kataphpraktoi. I also didn't say, "Wow the Egyptian units don't look like their from the Mummy This sucks" No, because someone that buys a strategy game tends to be a bit more intellegent (though looking at some posts on forums I'm not so sure...), and can handle so called boring, historical units.
As for those wanting diversity, did any one think that the Germans should have been given Panzers and sturmtroopers, and the Russians AK-47 weilding communist? NO The Europeans were similar, but not identical, which will be the same case for the Succesor States (which Egypt should be included in).
There. Sorry for the rant.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Big King Sanctaphrax @ June 08 2004,11:14)]About making the game historically accurate being expensive, which somebody mentioned-I'd do the research for them, for free And I'm sure there would be a bunch of people here who'd help, just so we could make RTW the game that we know it should be.

Preciselly. Well put. But they just don't give a sh**...

[econ21]

I'm as disappointed about the lack of historical units as anyone (well, maybe not Aymar ). But let's face it, this is a matter of taste and I can see the point of the bean counters at CA. Giving the Egyptians caricatured units is going to satisfy people who want their Egyptians to look like something they'd "recognise" from Star Gate or "Mummies Alive". I suspect most of the market for RTW won't even have heard of Ptolemic Egypt, let alone have a grasp of what it involves. Yes, I do think it will allow them to sell more than they lose in any (read: no)rejections from the hardcore people here. The reason IGN or whoever focussed on the Egyptians as a faction was presumably because they thought people would see them as "cool".

Historical computer wargames, which seems to be what people here want, are a niche market and one that has disappeared from the commerical mainstream. Where are the bigger corporate outfits like SSI and Talonsoft now? Whose making similar games now? Small companies like Battlefront and BreakawayGames consisting of enthusiasts often marketing via the internet and probably paying themsleves very small bucks. We just got lucky that CA managed to produce in the TW game a mass market real time strategy game that happened to have a better engine for modelling real time battles than the more hardcore games.

As pointed out in another thread, I also think we're being rather cosmetic here, focussing on the appearance of units. MTW is NOT a historical wargame. The strategy layer is fun, but fundamentally ahistorical. The battles are awesome, great simulations but extremely stylised (e.g. regarding command and control). I think we're in danger of people like those collectors of historical memorabilia, obsessing about some gaudy SS dagger (of dubious authenticity) they picked up in a militaria shop. We've put up with the whole fake "swords" class of MTW units, mythical Saracen infantry, fictionalised ghazi warriors, anachronistic kataphracts, premature and bizarrely "metal stringed" arbalests etc. I think we can swallow the RTW Egyptians.

My recommendation is that people chill out. For me the big worry is whether the gameplay remains as sound as in STW and MTW. From what I've seen on Time Commanders, I believe that is true but we won't know until we open the box.

All that said, like most others here, I will be watching the modders with real interest on this.

[Trax]

Quote[/b] ]I'm as disappointed about the lack of historical units as anyone (well, maybe not Aymar ). But let's face it, this is a matter of taste and I can see the point of the bean counters at CA. Giving the Egyptians caricatured units is going to satisfy people who want their Egyptians to look like something they'd "recognise" from Star Gate or "Mummies Alive". I suspect most of the market for RTW won't even have heard of Ptolemic Egypt, let alone have a grasp of what it involves. Yes, I do think it will allow them to sell more than they lose in any (read: no)rejections from the hardcore people here. The reason IGN or whoever focussed on the Egyptians as a faction was presumably because they thought people would see them as "cool".

But, as I already pointed out this is going to change with the new Alexander movie in the Autumn (what looks to be one of the most accurate looking Hollywood productions ever). I´m quite sure that many people are going to buy the RTW because of the battles in Alexander and those people already know what to expect from the Egyptian faction in the Hellenistic era.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (hundurinn @ June 08 2004,11:45)]Just got one question. How can history from 800 BC - 500 AD be boring? This is a period where empires rose and fall and huge battles were fought. Man now i'm confused

That is because you're an Elitist History Buff and therefore, according to the Fantasy units rallyers, an uncool, boring nerd.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Rufus @ June 08 2004,12:24)]I don't think I'm going to be able to buy RTW because my PC isn't advanced enough, and MTW keeps me busy enough. Maybe later when I can afford a new PC.

You're in the same boat as I am.

Quote[/b] ]On the historical accuracy issue I'm sympathetic but it's a question of balance and the choices we have available as consumers. MTW is a great game, even though no country in Europe was ever in a position to conquer the whole continent in the Middle Ages, there was no "Italian" kingdom at the time, sometimes the English lords have Anglo-Saxon first names and Norman last names, etc.

Although those aproximations are irritating, they are passable.

Quote[/b] ]Is there a better game or series of games available that strike as good a balance between gameplay (especially campaign strategy and battle tactics) and accuracy as the TW series has?

Nope. That is the point. Why change a winning formula?

Quote[/b] ]The question now is whether the liberties taken in the name of marketing for RTW tip the balance too far.

People have said, "well STW and MTW sold well enough" - in business, it's not enough to just do as well as you did before. To stay alive in a competitive and volatile business like computer games, you have to keep improving your profits, especially to compete with the shooters and the Sims, etc. Sorry to break that to those who like to rail against the capitalist machine. :)

HEHEHE Yes. The gaming market is a dog-eat-dog environement. But to improve the game they had to see what was wrong and change it, not what was right

Quote[/b] ]And marketing people, if they're good at what they do, don't just sit there and make stuff up.

Is that the case? I think not. In fact, I think they are missing the mark alltogether. I might be wrong though...

Quote[/b] ]Sadly, if someone in Activision's marketing department says, "This game won't sell enough unless the Egyptians look like Charlton Heston's costars in the Ten Commandments, and they dance like in the Bangles video," there's probably a good reason for it. Maybe they got blank stares in focus groups when they showed screen shots of Ptolemaic armies. Game development and publication is a tough, expensive undertaking, and successful publishers know how to achieve their business goals.

But let's say CA said, screw the marketers, we're doing what we want. They lose their publisher. RTW never hits the shelves. CA might go under.

And where does that leave us, the history-buff niche of the game-buying public? Well, no more TW series games. As to whether that's a problem for you, it depends on your answer to my question in the 3rd paragraph above.

As Trax said very correctly, presently, if Activision did drop them, other publishers would be tearing each other apart to get the deal with CA. But CA might not realize this...