Never shift in to reverse without a backup plan.
@bosie the comparison is a bit flawed. bfg2 went from a peak player count of ~9.000 to ~1.400 in six weeks and it is losing further players week for week atm. it seems to lose players faster than bfg1 if I interprete steamcharts data correctly.
Yeah, there's always dropoff in absolutely any multiplayer or singleplayer game, I don't care if you've got the best balance on the planet. The only thing that keeps people coming back - as the chart above ironically shows - is content.
See those upwards blips in January, June and late October? They're when the DLCs each came out. People came back to the game to spend money because they had a reason to. Not that Blizzard ever releases data, but I bet you if we could see Starcraft 2's stats, we'd see exactly the same thing. Likewise, switching to a singleplayer experience, Fallout 4's charts also show exactly when their DLCs came out, thanks to abnormal spikes.
If Tindalos/FHI are smart, they'll get the balance to "good enough" and focus on content, rather than neglecting content and focus on polishing balance within an inch of its life.
@romeo the studio has a history of having a MP focus. the customisation stuff from the first battlefleet gothic has many similarities to the ship customisation from stellar impact (which is a MP only MOBA-like).
That very well may be the case: I adamantly didn't give a damn about multiplayer the first time around, but the singleplayer content was more than enough to keep me sated.
BFG2 in comparison I haven't touched basically since it came out of Beta. There's just not enough to do as a singleplayer. If this is what I should expect from Tindalos, it'll be the last game I end up buying from them.
@romeo i dont think they gave up anything for single player imo. Unless you consider changes to fleet costumization as giving up much.
And i really doubt they are just gonna blow off the single player content. Cause thats really the only way they will be able to continue making money with DLC. They can easily make 2 expansion packs wrapping it up for the aeldari alliance, chaos, tau and orks. But i think they will have to get with GW on that.
Fleet Customization I would argue was probably one of the biggest, if not the biggest, features of the first game, so yeah, I do consider that giving up quite a bit. And that's one feature among several. We also gave up fleet progression, ship progression and multiple game modes for the multiplayer crowd. Let's not kid ourselves here, singleplayers had most of their content cut to appeal to multiplayer.
I don't disagree with you on the financials of it, but I also don't have enough faith in Focus Home to assume they know that, based upon what I've seen.
@romeo yeah there are popular IPs in RTS. But the genre is not nearly as popular as what it used to be by a large margin. Yeah EA is going for a C n C revival because those criminals want to milk the people for all that nostalgia.
Like Broodwar Re. It will be successfull. But where the frack are the fresh RTS games at? Nowhere to be seen for miles because the market is just not there for it.
There's tons of unique strategy series lately:
- Ashes of the Singularity.
- Offworld Trading Company.
- They Are Billions.
- Driftland: Magic Revival.
- And let's not forget the original Battlefleet Gothic came out less than three years ago.
To say nothing of upcoming new strategy games like Iron Harvest, Project Pheonix and Conan Unconquered.
Again, do we have oversaturation in the RTS market? No, not currently (Though my budget is certainly being pushed to its limit). Though the market is nowhere near "dead". Hell, SEGA has been acquiring strategy developers lately, and that seems to be working splendid for them.
@wind459 strategy games are a dead genre. Also if you look at the 40k fanbase and all the strategy games that came out. They arent PVPers. I think bFGA 2 can average out at 1k tops once balance is ok with spurts of high activity when campaigns are released. But the PVP scene will always remain small.
Not sure I agree with that assessment. Strategy games have been absolutely killing it lately (Please see: XCOM2, Total Warhammer II, Battletech, Civilization, the Starcraft Remaster, Halo Wars 2 and many more that I'm forgetting just in the last couple years). Hell, the fact EA of all companies is jumping back on board strategy games should tell you something about the state of strategy games these days.
@romeo i dont agree with that. The campaigns are decent. And tindalos is going to bring out more PVE content. PVP only requires balance improvements and tweaks to factions. You seriously think focus or tindalos is gonna have 3/4 of the team sitting around making sandwiches for the few that are responsible for PVP.
Campaigns aren't half bad, I've done my share of congratulating them on that. But given how much singleplayer stuff we gave up to appease the multiplayer crowd, there's little doubt who they're catering to these days. As for the team, I suspect with a couple exceptions, most of the devs working on multiplayer or singleplayer are the exact same staff, meaning Tindalos can't logically work on both simultaneously without splitting their attention in half.
I would love to see if we could get some kind of sandbox campaign (galaxy conquer) which you can play with any faction in a random map. Maybe also with some random missions like transport escort, search and rescue missions, assault, data recovery and so on.
There's about half a dozen threads about this already. Yes, we all want that back from the first game. No, it's probably not coming back, because Tindalos is all about that multiplayer these days.
I feel like they can elect just to make stuff up now, Games Workshop has really come around in that respect (Given the majority of the Drukhari fleet from this was made just for this, and most of the Vampire Coast roster and a single Tomb King unit in Total Warhammer 2 were also made up for that game).
It's nice to know Tindalos' hands aren't tied if/when they do decide to flesh out (Ironic pun intended) the Necron roster.