Double. Forgive me.
So my comment is far too broad but the inverse of the same comment is the absolutely correct takeaway? You don't notice anything strange here?
Alright, fine, let's break this down too.
There is a point buried under the unnecessary tone of your post. So let's discuss the point.
you can make a crappy GAAS/MP game with bad marketing and messaging and the game will sell millions and set the charts on fire.
Let's start with the first point:
you can make a crappy GAAS/MP game
How does one define "crappy"? Let's utilize the one quantitative barometer of quality, even though it is certainly flawed and somewhat unreliable: metacritic or gameranking.
The inherent problem with this is that a game is most often reviewed at launch. So, let's say game GaaS X releases in November, and at launch there's not a lot of content, the servers are unreliable, and it's a bit of a mess. The game gets a 70.
Is this a crap game? Maybe. Does this mean that the service game will sell well for years?
Of course not. A poor review score doesn't cause higher sales. Not for a service game or a non-service game.
The difference, of course, is that a service game evolves over time.
Look at Rainbow Six: Siege. It's rated at a mid 7. And how did it sell at launch? Well, it certainly didn't set the chart on fire.
But then what happened? The game received constant improvements and added features and the user base began to grow. Sales improved. Now, it's a constant on the top-selling charts.
Is the R6:Siege of September 2017 the same game as the one launched in December of 2015? Would it still be rated a mid-7? The answer to both questions is "no".
So the "crappy" game isn't guaranteed to sell well. But a Service Game can improve and expand from launch, become a better game over time, and continue to track an audience.
To this point, then, no, you cannot just make a "crappy" game and "set the charts on fire".
bad marketing and messaging
I'd disagree with you again.
A game with bad marketing and messaging struggles, no matter what kind of game it is.
However, service based games that succeed can do so despite initial mis-steps. And a service based game is far more likely to be supported with marketing, promotion and community support far longer than a non-service based game which cannot be improved upon over time.
The games on the top-sellers list every month? Those games have excellent marketing and promotional support far after launch. Unless you'd like to point out which games do not?
However, there are also many service games that are nowhere near the top-sellers lists. And those games do not have decent marketing and promotional support.
Unfortunately, your point cannot logically be taken from the quote I made regarding how important it is for non service based games to have almost perfect product quality, marketing and promotion for launch.
A service based game, as opposed to a non service based game, can recover from a rough launch. It can improve game quality (although perhaps not the metacritic score), and have consistent marketing and promotional support for new content and features being released, while supporting the community.
The service based games at the top of the charts every month? They get this. They do these things. The service based games with "crap games, terrible marketing, etc" aren't at the top of the best-sellers list, ever.
Your post has elements of truth buried deep underneath the unpleasant qualities of the post itself. Unfortunately, if your takeaway from my quote truly is what you've posted, you're far off base.
