Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

Categories

So now that 3k is out is CA going hard on tww3?

13»

Comments

  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Posts: 4,136Registered Users

    Isn't anyone else depressed that any hope for an inspired vision has instead been replaced by the market-led consideration of 'expected risk and return'?

    I got invested in Warhammer because of a hint at there being an over-arching vision for a Warhammer trilogy with as much as CA could possible include, capped with an all-encompassing combined campaign. I even tolerated that this wouldn't be possible without DLC, given CA's were tied to making a trilogy under a time-limited license.

    I despaired when that wasn't the case and it seemed instead that CA were choosing to invest resources in accordance to Sega-Sammy's share price expectations instead.

    And before the usual suspects come out with their moronic 'durr-hurr, company gotta make money'; they have plenty of options, they don't have to choose the most greedy and anti-consumer way of doing it every single friggin time.

    I think the low point here is complaining about CA using a 'market-led' (influenced or determined by the needs and wishes of consumers) model and then saying they choose to be 'anti-consumer'.

    You say so much without really saying anything.

    By all means, you can whinge about people not understanding you and you understand the games industry while the rest of us have no idea... but I don't believe you.
    I understand the difference a market and a consumer. I think you do too, but this post depends on you not acknowledging it.
    A market is made up of consumers. See?
    The difference between a market and a consumer is not analogous to the difference between a forest and a tree. You're intentionally missing the point because your gas-lighting doesn't work otherwise.
    A consumer is a constituent part of a market, the EU has a market of 500 million people. There are other companies and organisations in a market, however, a market-led strategy specifically looks at what customers want. The fact you attached the term 'expected risk and return' on the end means, as usual, very little. All companies do basic risk and return planning, whether they go for high end or standard products. Like I say, you write a lot but communicate very little.


    You now acknowledging the difference between your use of the term 'market' before and your description of it now, but without an apology, looks worse.

    Lootboxes are a subject for example where there's a strong case to be made that they are anti-consumer. But they make shedloads of money, which is why some companies keep using them: the fact that there is a lucrative market for them does not magically make the argument that they are anti-consumer disappear.

    When I moan about CA taking an approach which I think is soulless, cynical and anti-consumer; the fact a market exists for what they're shovelling does not conflict with my position at all.
    Oh dear.. in the context of 'a market-led' strategy, it is specifically linked to the meaning of consumers - I'm just using your context. How do you not get this?

    A loot box requires a player to pay more for what was already advertised, it also takes advantage of youngsters. A separate DLC policy advertises something new that adds content.

    When you moan you offer no context or evidence, so it becomes grating and gives a bad name to those who actually care about the product.
  • RomeoRejectRomeoReject Posts: 516Registered Users
    Xenos7 said:

    Xenos7 said:
    https://store.steampowered.com/search/?filter=topsellers

    Here you are, even easier and more recent stats. Strategy has two entries in the top ten (One of which is the just released Three Kingdoms), and then doesn't make another appearance until #13 on the list. In fact, of the 89 games on the best seller list, only ten could be realistically classified as strategy (And two of them are the same game).

    Again, there's a reason companies like EA, Activision and UbiSoft have largely abandoned the strategy genre, and it's not because they hate money. The fact Sega/Creative Assembly are willing to dump huge amounts of money in to a small genre is something to celebrate, not whine about.
    EA - The Sims
    Activision - Starcraft
    UbiSoft - Anno, Heroes of M&M

    They didn't abandon strategy at all.

    Also lol, how the hell are you doing stats here? In the top ten there isn't a single RPG, for instance. So you would say RPG is even more niche. Except Skyrim.

    My stats are from actual business research, I think they stand.
    The Sims isn't a strategy, get real.
    Starcraft's last content came four years ago, and they haven't touched strategy since.
    Anno is the only one you've listed that actually applies here, though I'd argue it's far smaller than what CA commits to.
    Heroes of Might & Magic hasn't had any release in four years, just like Starcraft.

    No RPGs in there? There's 22 according to the RPG tag, however taking out ones that are of a different primary genre (XCOM2, Borderlands 2, Assassin's Creed) still leaves 19, or just shy of double the strategy list. Hell, I remember Ashes of the Singularity sold shy of 200,000 copies and Stardock considered that incredibly successful.

    Again, most of us are more than happy with the amount of money SEGA and CA have been dumping in to the genre. If you aren't, I guess I'm a little lost as to what you're doing here.
  • RikRiorikRikRiorik Posts: 6,500Registered Users
    I keep changing my mind on Three Kingdoms going back and forth on how much I might or might not like or enjoy some aspects. But it is a really solid game that is growing on me the more I understand and internalize how it works. I mean it is never going to match Warhammer in unit and faction diversity although they’ve done an okay job of differentiating the different Warlords. But the few 3K battles I’ve played have been helped hugely in levels of fun by the actual battle maps. Game generally also feels smooth and polished.

    I’d imagine they’ll start ramping up TWW3 production in a bit. They’ve probably got some more to do post launch for Three Kingdoms though before TWW3 production starts in earnest.
    Lord of the Undermountain and your friendly neighbourhood giant (Dwarf)
    Favourite campaigns: Clan Angrund, Followers of Nagash and the new Huntsmarshall’s Expedition
  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Posts: 1,473Registered Users

    Isn't anyone else depressed that any hope for an inspired vision has instead been replaced by the market-led consideration of 'expected risk and return'?

    I got invested in Warhammer because of a hint at there being an over-arching vision for a Warhammer trilogy with as much as CA could possible include, capped with an all-encompassing combined campaign. I even tolerated that this wouldn't be possible without DLC, given CA's were tied to making a trilogy under a time-limited license.

    I despaired when that wasn't the case and it seemed instead that CA were choosing to invest resources in accordance to Sega-Sammy's share price expectations instead.

    And before the usual suspects come out with their moronic 'durr-hurr, company gotta make money'; they have plenty of options, they don't have to choose the most greedy and anti-consumer way of doing it every single friggin time.

    I think the low point here is complaining about CA using a 'market-led' (influenced or determined by the needs and wishes of consumers) model and then saying they choose to be 'anti-consumer'.

    You say so much without really saying anything.

    By all means, you can whinge about people not understanding you and you understand the games industry while the rest of us have no idea... but I don't believe you.
    I understand the difference a market and a consumer. I think you do too, but this post depends on you not acknowledging it.
    A market is made up of consumers. See?
    The difference between a market and a consumer is not analogous to the difference between a forest and a tree. You're intentionally missing the point because your gas-lighting doesn't work otherwise.
    A consumer is a constituent part of a market, the EU has a market of 500 million people. There are other companies and organisations in a market, however, a market-led strategy specifically looks at what customers want. The fact you attached the term 'expected risk and return' on the end means, as usual, very little. All companies do basic risk and return planning, whether they go for high end or standard products. Like I say, you write a lot but communicate very little.


    You now acknowledging the difference between your use of the term 'market' before and your description of it now, but without an apology, looks worse.

    Lootboxes are a subject for example where there's a strong case to be made that they are anti-consumer. But they make shedloads of money, which is why some companies keep using them: the fact that there is a lucrative market for them does not magically make the argument that they are anti-consumer disappear.

    When I moan about CA taking an approach which I think is soulless, cynical and anti-consumer; the fact a market exists for what they're shovelling does not conflict with my position at all.
    Oh dear.. in the context of 'a market-led' strategy, it is specifically linked to the meaning of consumers - I'm just using your context. How do you not get this?

    A loot box requires a player to pay more for what was already advertised, it also takes advantage of youngsters. A separate DLC policy advertises something new that adds content.

    When you moan you offer no context or evidence, so it becomes grating and gives a bad name to those who actually care about the product.
    No you're not. You're changing the context because ducking and diving serves your purpose better than straightforward and honest generosity does.

    If you cared then you would criticise CA and be open to other criticising. Your own engagement with me would be constructive and you wouldn't be trying to fudge what I say when I make it clear enough that something being marklet-led does not protect it from accusations of being anti-consumer.

    You know this to be true but your only just cause for how you're responding depends you not acknowledging it and others not noticing.
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Posts: 4,136Registered Users

    Isn't anyone else depressed that any hope for an inspired vision has instead been replaced by the market-led consideration of 'expected risk and return'?

    I got invested in Warhammer because of a hint at there being an over-arching vision for a Warhammer trilogy with as much as CA could possible include, capped with an all-encompassing combined campaign. I even tolerated that this wouldn't be possible without DLC, given CA's were tied to making a trilogy under a time-limited license.

    I despaired when that wasn't the case and it seemed instead that CA were choosing to invest resources in accordance to Sega-Sammy's share price expectations instead.

    And before the usual suspects come out with their moronic 'durr-hurr, company gotta make money'; they have plenty of options, they don't have to choose the most greedy and anti-consumer way of doing it every single friggin time.

    I think the low point here is complaining about CA using a 'market-led' (influenced or determined by the needs and wishes of consumers) model and then saying they choose to be 'anti-consumer'.

    You say so much without really saying anything.

    By all means, you can whinge about people not understanding you and you understand the games industry while the rest of us have no idea... but I don't believe you.
    I understand the difference a market and a consumer. I think you do too, but this post depends on you not acknowledging it.
    A market is made up of consumers. See?
    The difference between a market and a consumer is not analogous to the difference between a forest and a tree. You're intentionally missing the point because your gas-lighting doesn't work otherwise.
    A consumer is a constituent part of a market, the EU has a market of 500 million people. There are other companies and organisations in a market, however, a market-led strategy specifically looks at what customers want. The fact you attached the term 'expected risk and return' on the end means, as usual, very little. All companies do basic risk and return planning, whether they go for high end or standard products. Like I say, you write a lot but communicate very little.


    You now acknowledging the difference between your use of the term 'market' before and your description of it now, but without an apology, looks worse.

    Lootboxes are a subject for example where there's a strong case to be made that they are anti-consumer. But they make shedloads of money, which is why some companies keep using them: the fact that there is a lucrative market for them does not magically make the argument that they are anti-consumer disappear.

    When I moan about CA taking an approach which I think is soulless, cynical and anti-consumer; the fact a market exists for what they're shovelling does not conflict with my position at all.
    Oh dear.. in the context of 'a market-led' strategy, it is specifically linked to the meaning of consumers - I'm just using your context. How do you not get this?

    A loot box requires a player to pay more for what was already advertised, it also takes advantage of youngsters. A separate DLC policy advertises something new that adds content.

    When you moan you offer no context or evidence, so it becomes grating and gives a bad name to those who actually care about the product.
    No you're not. You're changing the context because ducking and diving serves your purpose better than straightforward and honest generosity does.

    If you cared then you would criticise CA and be open to other criticising. Your own engagement with me would be constructive and you wouldn't be trying to fudge what I say when I make it clear enough that something being marklet-led does not protect it from accusations of being anti-consumer.

    You know this to be true but your only just cause for how you're responding depends you not acknowledging it and others not noticing.
    "replaced by the market-led consideration of 'expected risk and return'?"

    A market-led approach is defined as basing their strategy on the wants and needs of the consumer. This does not concern anything else apart from the consumer.

    why are you finding this difficult?

    I always give feedback, as in I suggested a type of workshop for Ikit, I suggested an under empire mechanic for Skaven and generally a deeper playstyle.

    I immediately said I did not like the way the BM and WE DLCs were done, i.e. more mechanics and units, minus the mini-campaign.

    At no point do I 'guess' the mindset of CA and how their company works and nor do I fully understand how a videogames
    business work, however, you seem to be under the impression that you do.. you don't.
  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Posts: 1,473Registered Users
    I'm finding it difficult because you're taking words that already mean something and then substituting your own. You have to do this to skirt around the statement of the obvious that anti-consumerism can be a market-winning strategy.
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Posts: 4,136Registered Users

    I'm finding it difficult because you're taking words that already mean something and then substituting your own. You have to do this to skirt around the statement of the obvious that anti-consumerism can be a market-winning strategy.

    So now you're telling me the terms market-led and market-winning are interchangeable? This gets better.
  • Vanilla_GorillaVanilla_Gorilla Posts: 16,422Registered Users
    @davedave1124 I appreciate that you're making an effort.
    RikRiorik said:



    I’d imagine they’ll start ramping up TWW3 production in a bit. They’ve probably got some more to do post launch for Three Kingdoms though before TWW3 production starts in earnest.

    Based on my complete lack of knowledge I speculate they moved over a few weeks ago with a crew on polishing duty that's probably still around.

    They were open about TWW3 being in pre production for a long time.
    Game 3 must have variety in its core races. Ogres, Chaos Dwarfs, Kislev, and Demons of Chaos in its full iconic, glorious, undivided glory.
  • talonntalonn Junior Member Posts: 520Registered Users

    Xenos7 said:


    Also a major step backwards, if you actually care about units. It's a PDX game with a TW game tacked on, mostly.

    What, did you expect them to put dragons and phoenixes in? Do you think having a big roster is all there is to strategy games? Chess games are a mirror match all the time and yet its gameplay is renowned for its depth and detail.
    This is so far the best reply to the dumbest comment.
  • uriakuriak Posts: 3,421Registered Users
    edited May 27
    TWW has always been both the actual game and the "possible" game. TWW2 actual game is an interesting TW title, but I don't think I'm alone when I think it misses the mark on what it could constitute for the players.

    If we just ignore the subjective element of missing units/races, AND the possible deepening of campaign mechanics often debated here (on economy/recruit/roster usage, etc) there are two non debatable elements

    - ME still feels tacked on rather than fully integrated. The updates are well meaning but still feel as squeezed up resources scraped from the DLC workforce
    - each update introduces bugs that take a hefty time being ironed out.

    The big issue with game 3 is whether they hope for more /less sales than the other games. The theme is maybe too specific, even if they introduce some good factions. The big appeal content still requires owning other games. Maybe some people will have taken for granted new stuff introduced in 3K. How can such a game be budgeted anyway ?

    Is the complete trilogy expected to get a broader appeal ?
  • SephlockSephlock Posts: 1,616Registered Users
    I just want rat ogres with 3 miniguns, is that so wrong?
    #JusticeForUshoran #RuneGolems #RuneGuardians #ShardDragons #Thunderbarges #Stormfiends #BigMonsters #MoreDakka
  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Posts: 1,473Registered Users

    I'm finding it difficult because you're taking words that already mean something and then substituting your own. You have to do this to skirt around the statement of the obvious that anti-consumerism can be a market-winning strategy.

    So now you're telling me the terms market-led and market-winning are interchangeable? This gets better.
    No, but you're going to keep pretending I did no matter what I say, because you're not an honest or generous person.
  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Posts: 1,473Registered Users
    uriak said:

    TWW has always been both the actual game and the "possible" game. TWW2 actual game is an interesting TW title, but I don't think I'm alone when I think it misses the mark on what it could constitute for the players.

    If we just ignore the subjective element of missing units/races, AND the possible deepening of campaign mechanics often debated here (on economy/recruit/roster usage, etc) there are two non debatable elements

    - ME still feels tacked on rather than fully integrated. The updates are well meaning but still feel as squeezed up resources scraped from the DLC workforce
    - each update introduces bugs that take a hefty time being ironed out.

    The big issue with game 3 is whether they hope for more /less sales than the other games. The theme is maybe too specific, even if they introduce some good factions. The big appeal content still requires owning other games. Maybe some people will have taken for granted new stuff introduced in 3K. How can such a game be budgeted anyway ?

    Is the complete trilogy expected to get a broader appeal ?

    It feels tacked-on because it is tacked-on. CA seem to have not realise that their statement before the release of the first game regarding a Warhammer trilogy with a finale combined campaign featuring everything they could possibly fit in is what sold a number of people on the whole idea when prior to that the hype was 'meh'. They didn't see the combined campaign as a selling-point which players were buying into and handing over money for, but another one of their 'free giveaways' that are worth nothing. It's why the Norsca fiasco happened.
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Posts: 4,136Registered Users

    I'm finding it difficult because you're taking words that already mean something and then substituting your own. You have to do this to skirt around the statement of the obvious that anti-consumerism can be a market-winning strategy.

    So now you're telling me the terms market-led and market-winning are interchangeable? This gets better.
    No, but you're going to keep pretending I did no matter what I say, because you're not an honest or generous person.
    the statement of the obvious that anti-consumerism can be a **market-winning** strategy

    You seem to have used the term 'market-winning' in the place 'market-led', is that a mistake or something more mendacious?

    On a side note, what's my generosity got to do with this?
  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Posts: 1,473Registered Users

    I'm finding it difficult because you're taking words that already mean something and then substituting your own. You have to do this to skirt around the statement of the obvious that anti-consumerism can be a market-winning strategy.

    So now you're telling me the terms market-led and market-winning are interchangeable? This gets better.
    No, but you're going to keep pretending I did no matter what I say, because you're not an honest or generous person.
    the statement of the obvious that anti-consumerism can be a **market-winning** strategy

    You seem to have used the term 'market-winning' in the place 'market-led', is that a mistake or something more mendacious?

    On a side note, what's my generosity got to do with this?
    If I said I had to go help my uncle jack off a horse; a generous person chooses to read this as me going to help Uncle Jack down from a horse and I missed proper punctuation because I was in a rush. An ungenerous person sees the alternative way of interpreting it and uses it to score points in a spiteful game that only matters to them and others like them.

    You're the latter.
  • Unknown6203Unknown6203 Posts: 834Registered Users
    edited May 27
    Nyxilis said:

    Nyxilis said:

    It's not like they need most of that team on 3k now. New game team is not a DLC team. All your main components are already there. I mean they'll likely keep a lot of folks to make certain things continue to be smoothed about but there is an eventual shift to the DLC line of things. But no matter what title they're looking at next it's simply better for them to move on to that title. So 3k is likely going to be busted down to a smaller team. Even if they simply intended to follow up with a smaller but linked title.

    They always say that Nyxilis bit truth be told like in any place if they need personnel for crunch time they WILL take personnel from other areas.

    However i think like you after 3k they will have a skeleton crew on 3k and move some of the personnel to more important stuff.
    There is only so much that rings true. They probably do pass around a certain amount but there is only so far you can do till you straight up hamstring the other. This does risk a number of things, it's also more expensive to remove to much team and have them come back and reaquainte themselves with old projects, files, and other things. So in the long run it does not make any sense till that crew is largely not needed anymore.
    In my field of work we get traded around all the time, companies are evil... if they need you they won't care they will move you. its were the demand is. they say they have different teams but i am 100% sure that some from WH2 were working on 3K after it was delayed.

    I personally think that 3K affected a lot the release dates for WH2, its pretty visible. look at all the races that WH1 had as Race packs WoC, Beastmen, Wood Elves,Brettonia and Norsca now on WH2 had only 2 race packs. if it went the same way as WH1 we should have at least 2 more, Araby was most likely candidate since it has a Army list on Warmaster the location is both on Vortex and Mortal Empires, yet now we have Lord packs because they are working on 3k.
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Posts: 4,136Registered Users

    I'm finding it difficult because you're taking words that already mean something and then substituting your own. You have to do this to skirt around the statement of the obvious that anti-consumerism can be a market-winning strategy.

    So now you're telling me the terms market-led and market-winning are interchangeable? This gets better.
    No, but you're going to keep pretending I did no matter what I say, because you're not an honest or generous person.
    the statement of the obvious that anti-consumerism can be a **market-winning** strategy

    You seem to have used the term 'market-winning' in the place 'market-led', is that a mistake or something more mendacious?

    On a side note, what's my generosity got to do with this?
    If I said I had to go help my uncle jack off a horse; a generous person chooses to read this as me going to help Uncle Jack down from a horse and I missed proper punctuation because I was in a rush. An ungenerous person sees the alternative way of interpreting it and uses it to score points in a spiteful game that only matters to them and others like them.

    You're the latter.
    It was great hearing about 'Uncle Jack' and noting that you skipped answering the main question:

    Did you mean to replace market-led with market-winning? Or was that a 'slight of hand' I wasn't meant to see?

    Either way, I can hardly be accused of any wrong doing here as I'm just going off what you say, it's hardly my fault if I have to take into account your forgetfulness or dishonesty.
  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Posts: 1,473Registered Users

    I'm finding it difficult because you're taking words that already mean something and then substituting your own. You have to do this to skirt around the statement of the obvious that anti-consumerism can be a market-winning strategy.

    So now you're telling me the terms market-led and market-winning are interchangeable? This gets better.
    No, but you're going to keep pretending I did no matter what I say, because you're not an honest or generous person.
    the statement of the obvious that anti-consumerism can be a **market-winning** strategy

    You seem to have used the term 'market-winning' in the place 'market-led', is that a mistake or something more mendacious?

    On a side note, what's my generosity got to do with this?
    If I said I had to go help my uncle jack off a horse; a generous person chooses to read this as me going to help Uncle Jack down from a horse and I missed proper punctuation because I was in a rush. An ungenerous person sees the alternative way of interpreting it and uses it to score points in a spiteful game that only matters to them and others like them.

    You're the latter.
    It was great hearing about 'Uncle Jack' and noting that you skipped answering the main question:

    Did you mean to replace market-led with market-winning? Or was that a 'slight of hand' I wasn't meant to see?

    Either way, I can hardly be accused of any wrong doing here as I'm just going off what you say, it's hardly my fault if I have to take into account your forgetfulness or dishonesty.
    The 'main question' didn't need answering because the secondary one was more important and is impactful on the whole. No amount of playing your game will clarify, correct or be constructive, because it is a game you're playing and you are not honest or generous.

  • RikRiorikRikRiorik Posts: 6,500Registered Users
    Oh my gawd ye two @davedave1124 and @ArecBalrin . Move on for Sigmar’s sake 😆!
    Lord of the Undermountain and your friendly neighbourhood giant (Dwarf)
    Favourite campaigns: Clan Angrund, Followers of Nagash and the new Huntsmarshall’s Expedition
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Posts: 4,136Registered Users

    I'm finding it difficult because you're taking words that already mean something and then substituting your own. You have to do this to skirt around the statement of the obvious that anti-consumerism can be a market-winning strategy.

    So now you're telling me the terms market-led and market-winning are interchangeable? This gets better.
    No, but you're going to keep pretending I did no matter what I say, because you're not an honest or generous person.
    the statement of the obvious that anti-consumerism can be a **market-winning** strategy

    You seem to have used the term 'market-winning' in the place 'market-led', is that a mistake or something more mendacious?

    On a side note, what's my generosity got to do with this?
    If I said I had to go help my uncle jack off a horse; a generous person chooses to read this as me going to help Uncle Jack down from a horse and I missed proper punctuation because I was in a rush. An ungenerous person sees the alternative way of interpreting it and uses it to score points in a spiteful game that only matters to them and others like them.

    You're the latter.
    It was great hearing about 'Uncle Jack' and noting that you skipped answering the main question:

    Did you mean to replace market-led with market-winning? Or was that a 'slight of hand' I wasn't meant to see?

    Either way, I can hardly be accused of any wrong doing here as I'm just going off what you say, it's hardly my fault if I have to take into account your forgetfulness or dishonesty.
    The 'main question' didn't need answering because the secondary one was more important and is impactful on the whole. No amount of playing your game will clarify, correct or be constructive, because it is a game you're playing and you are not honest or generous.

    Ah, very political.. "I'm not acknowledging the question that paints me in a poor light.. I'll answer the throw away question instead".

    If you insist on making words up and try to slip in 'new meanings' to answers you know are wrong and make claims like - "Empire is the best selling TW game", expect to be pulled up.
  • Xenos7Xenos7 Posts: 4,946Registered Users

    Xenos7 said:

    Xenos7 said:
    https://store.steampowered.com/search/?filter=topsellers

    Here you are, even easier and more recent stats. Strategy has two entries in the top ten (One of which is the just released Three Kingdoms), and then doesn't make another appearance until #13 on the list. In fact, of the 89 games on the best seller list, only ten could be realistically classified as strategy (And two of them are the same game).

    Again, there's a reason companies like EA, Activision and UbiSoft have largely abandoned the strategy genre, and it's not because they hate money. The fact Sega/Creative Assembly are willing to dump huge amounts of money in to a small genre is something to celebrate, not whine about.
    EA - The Sims
    Activision - Starcraft
    UbiSoft - Anno, Heroes of M&M

    They didn't abandon strategy at all.

    Also lol, how the hell are you doing stats here? In the top ten there isn't a single RPG, for instance. So you would say RPG is even more niche. Except Skyrim.

    My stats are from actual business research, I think they stand.
    The Sims isn't a strategy, get real.
    The Sims is a strategy/RPG game. How else would you classify it? There is no action at all. It has management and it has character building. Being a strategy game isn't a matter of complexity, it's a matter of mechanics.

    Starcraft's last content came four years ago, and they haven't touched strategy since.

    Starcraft Remastered, August 2017.

    No RPGs in there? There's 22 according to the RPG tag, however taking out ones that are of a different primary genre (XCOM2, Borderlands 2, Assassin's Creed) still leaves 19, or just shy of double the strategy list.

    Read again. I said *in the top ten*.

    Hell, I remember Ashes of the Singularity sold shy of 200,000 copies and Stardock considered that incredibly successful.

    Because 200.000 copies for an indie PC company is a big number. On the other hand RimWorld, an even more indie PC strategy game, sold over one million: https://www.pcgamesn.com/rimworld/rimworld-sales-numbers

    Again, most of us are more than happy with the amount of money SEGA and CA have been dumping in to the genre. If you aren't, I guess I'm a little lost as to what you're doing here.

    I'm trying to explain you with a lot of examples that no, strategy isn't a niche genre on PC. It's a niche game if you sums up all the gaming platforms out there.
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Posts: 20,699Registered Users
    The Sims is a people simulator and Starcraft Remastered...you're really reaching now as that's just touching up 20 year old content. Releasing this and Warcraft III Reforged just proves Blizzard no longer cares much for the strategy genre.

  • RomeoRejectRomeoReject Posts: 516Registered Users
    Xenos7 said:

    Xenos7 said:

    Xenos7 said:
    https://store.steampowered.com/search/?filter=topsellers

    Here you are, even easier and more recent stats. Strategy has two entries in the top ten (One of which is the just released Three Kingdoms), and then doesn't make another appearance until #13 on the list. In fact, of the 89 games on the best seller list, only ten could be realistically classified as strategy (And two of them are the same game).

    Again, there's a reason companies like EA, Activision and UbiSoft have largely abandoned the strategy genre, and it's not because they hate money. The fact Sega/Creative Assembly are willing to dump huge amounts of money in to a small genre is something to celebrate, not whine about.
    EA - The Sims
    Activision - Starcraft
    UbiSoft - Anno, Heroes of M&M

    They didn't abandon strategy at all.

    Also lol, how the hell are you doing stats here? In the top ten there isn't a single RPG, for instance. So you would say RPG is even more niche. Except Skyrim.

    My stats are from actual business research, I think they stand.
    The Sims isn't a strategy, get real.
    The Sims is a strategy/RPG game. How else would you classify it? There is no action at all. It has management and it has character building. Being a strategy game isn't a matter of complexity, it's a matter of mechanics.

    Starcraft's last content came four years ago, and they haven't touched strategy since.

    Starcraft Remastered, August 2017.

    No RPGs in there? There's 22 according to the RPG tag, however taking out ones that are of a different primary genre (XCOM2, Borderlands 2, Assassin's Creed) still leaves 19, or just shy of double the strategy list.

    Read again. I said *in the top ten*.

    Hell, I remember Ashes of the Singularity sold shy of 200,000 copies and Stardock considered that incredibly successful.

    Because 200.000 copies for an indie PC company is a big number. On the other hand RimWorld, an even more indie PC strategy game, sold over one million: https://www.pcgamesn.com/rimworld/rimworld-sales-numbers

    Again, most of us are more than happy with the amount of money SEGA and CA have been dumping in to the genre. If you aren't, I guess I'm a little lost as to what you're doing here.

    I'm trying to explain you with a lot of examples that no, strategy isn't a niche genre on PC. It's a niche game if you sums up all the gaming platforms out there.
    The Sims is a Simulation game. Hence why they call it "The Sims".

    Ah yes, the graphical touchup of a twenty year old, now-free game. Clearly a sign of how strong Activision feels about strategy!

    No need to reread, I have working eyes: In the top ten is Grim Dawn and Elder Scrolls Online. As of the day I posted that, Final Fantasy was also in the top ten. How many games of one genre do you need to see?

    Genuinely impressive numbers. Probably why it was specifically brought up in an article for being unusual.

    Sure it ain't buddy. I think we're done here, I can't keep going around in circles with you. I'm happy with how CA has been treating me as a strategy gamer. If you aren't, there's apparently tons of different strategy games for you to play, according to your own statements.
  • dge1dge1 Moderator Arkansas, USAPosts: 18,653Registered Users, Moderators, Knights
    Sorry folks, this has become a business and a game industry discussion, only very remotely related to Warhammer.

    Moved.
    "The two most common things in the universe are Hydrogen and Stupidity." - Harlan Ellison
    "The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously." - Hubert H. Humphrey
    "Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
  • BetoBotBetoBot Posts: 244Registered Users
    1v0 said:

    I think they will, but only when TW:3K passes (calms down). Because I think this will happen, the reason I think this is - 3K is humans only and when all the new stuff, the hype ,the exitment passes. It's just another humans vs humans (with different colour armor), and in the end TW:WH will still have more players because there is just more variety because of the monsters and fantasy of it.

    I had this with ROME 2, I really liked it played it non-stop but after time I realized that all units (of every country) are the same, they just have different armors/colours/stats. And after that I stoped playing it.

    Very well explained. I loved Rome 2.. But I had little interest in the DLC, it was more of the same.. But when warhammer arrived I absolutely need EVERY DLC they throw us.. And I want more races, leaders, units, everything..
Sign In or Register to comment.