Support NeoGAF

[ScionOfTheRisingSun]

There is likely a market for all or most games, but publishers their game to be a big AAA multi-million seller. Hollywood doesn't just make Transformers for every movie because there is plenty of money to be made in different genres with varying budgets. Most games seem like either Transformers or the Blair Witch Project these days, AAA or small downloadable stuff..

The barrier of entry has risen so high that the market simply cannot not support something of even smaller scale properly. A small scale project today is a different beast from one a few generations back. It is not like there have not been any attempts at making a living in the sub AAA arena, it has just proven to be very difficult because even though the market has grown tall it has also grown much more narrow.

Feel free to disagree, but the proof is in the pudding as they say. This is a market driven by the dynamics of consumerism, if a profitable niche exists then it will get filled out automatically because that is how consumerism works, it is much like evolution in that regard.

I'm still mad Sega said this same shit about modern games not being turn based when they revived the Shining series after Camelot walked. And the series has been shit since.

You do know that an internal SEGA team made the best turn based strategy game this generation, if not ever, then put it on a console and watched it bomb, hard, right?

The Shining series was always an umbrella term used for a bunch different games of different genres, one of them was a strategy RPG. Shining Force is one of my all time favourite games but that type of strategy RPG has been made aplenty since. Just look into Tactics Ogre, Advance Wars, Fire Emblem and Final Fantasy Tactics among other.

 

[tiff]

I 100% agree with him.

I know it must be annoying to be a fan of something and have it drastically changed like this but its a business decision and its the right one.

It's a good decision if your objective as a business is to lose lots of money.

 

[WanderingWind]

The barrier of entry has risen so high that the market simply cannot not support something of even smaller scale properly. A small scale project today is a different beast from one a few generations back. It is not like there have not been any attempts at making a living in the sub AAA arena, it has just proven to be very difficult because even though the market has grown tall it has also grown much more narrow.

Feel free to disagree, but the proof is in the pudding as they say. This is a market driven by the dynamics of consumerism, if a profitable niche exists then it will get filled out automatically because that is how consumerism works, it is much like evolution in that regard.

Well, the proof is in the pudding. In this case, the pudding is the far, far greater expanded marketplaces for smaller games like XBLA, XBLIG, PSN, WiiWare and Steam. A few generations ago, your point was true. It's simply not any longer, though. People have made a living residing in the AA forum, with Atlus, From, Platinum, etc working well within that frame for quite some time. Same with devs who have supplemented their AAA titles with games released on those aforementioned platforms.

 

[SapientWolf]

The barrier of entry has risen so high that the market simply cannot not support something of even smaller scale properly. A small scale project today is a different beast from one a few generations back. It is not like there have not been any attempts at making a living in the sub AAA arena, it has just proven to be very difficult because even though the market has grown tall it has also grown much more narrow.

Feel free to disagree, but the proof is in the pudding as they say. This is a market driven by the dynamics of consumerism, if a profitable niche exists then it will get filled out automatically because that is how consumerism works, it is much like evolution in that regard.

You do know that an internal SEGA team made the best turn based strategy game this generation, if not ever, then put it on a console and watched it bomb, hard, right?

The Shining series was always an umbrella term used for a bunch different games of different genres, one of them was a strategy RPG. Shining Force is one of my all time favourite games but that type of strategy RPG has been made aplenty since. Just look into Tactics Ogre, Advance Wars, Fire Emblem and Final Fantasy Tactics among other.

Valkyria Chronicles is interesting, in that it cratered at launch and then long tailed its way to over a million sales.

I think a strategy game with fast paced gameplay, drop-in/drop-out multiplayer and AAA production values would do well on the consoles, but it seems that no one is willing to take a chance on one.

 

[Hari Seldon]

The barrier of entry has risen so high that the market simply cannot not support something of even smaller scale properly. A small scale project today is a different beast from one a few generations back. It is not like there have not been any attempts at making a living in the sub AAA arena, it has just proven to be very difficult because even though the market has grown tall it has also grown much more narrow.

Feel free to disagree, but the proof is in the pudding as they say. This is a market driven by the dynamics of consumerism, if a profitable niche exists then it will get filled out automatically because that is how consumerism works, it is much like evolution in that regard.

Well ironically the semi-small studios are the ones dominating the strategy game genre these days. It is the *other* genres that are AAA or stay home.

 

[ScionOfTheRisingSun]

Well, the proof is in the pudding. In this case, the pudding is the far, far greater expanded marketplaces for smaller games like XBLA, XBLIG, PSN, WiiWare and Steam. A few generations ago, your point was true. It's simply not any longer, though. People have made a living residing in the AA forum, with Atlus, From, Platinum, etc working well within that frame for quite some time. Same with devs who have supplemented their AAA titles with games released on those aforementioned platforms.

Steam, maybe, the other ones, not so much. The ratio of also-ran twin stick shooter and tower defense game to things of actual interest are too high on console DD.

I am well aware of the existence Atlus, From Software and Platinum Games have carved for themselves, but once again, there needs to be a lot more going on of the sort for it to be considered a viable endeavour. A recreation of the SNES/PS2 era golden age these movements certainly are not.

Valkyria Chronicles is interesting, in that it cratered at launch and then long tailed its way to over a million sales.

I think a strategy game with fast paced gameplay, drop-in/drop-out multiplayer and AAA production values would do well on the consoles, but it seems that no one is willing to take a chance on one.

I would really love it if you could cite your source of Valkyria Chronicles PS3 going on to sell a million copies eventually, because I could swear that it did something abysmal like 20-50k in the first month and then dropped out of the charts. It would warm my heart if a million unit sold was the case, but I find that hard to believe.

 

[ampere]

“I use the example of music artists. Look at someone old school like Ray Charles, if he would make music today it would still be Ray Charles but he would probably do it more in the style of Kanye West. Bringing Ray Charles back is all fine and good, but it just needs to move on, although the core essence will still be the same.

:LOL

What now?

I think they'd be fine making a strategy game, but on a lower budget and selling for budget price. Everything doesn't have to be a shooter, come on.

 

[NullPointer]

I am well aware of the existence Atlus, From Software and Platinum Games have carved for themselves, but once again, there needs to be a lot more going on of the sort for it to be considered a viable endeavour. A recreation of the SNES/PS2 era golden age these movements certainly are not.

I don't get this mentality. What makes it more viable is that not everybody is doing it. Once the market is saturated with mid-range titles its less lucrative, not more.

Edit: Or to put it a little different: Would you rather have the first turn based strategy title (for example) on a platform that does it right? Or the 20th?

 

[bhlaab]

You just cant make games like X-Com anymore. It's impossible. If Frank Sinatra was alive, he'd probably be doing dub steps right now. This proves my theory. Remember Rappin Rodney? He knew he would never get that proverbial respect unless he also got with the times.

 

[erragal]

You do know that an internal SEGA team made the best turn based strategy game this generation, if not ever, then put it on a console and watched it bomb, hard, right?

Whoah, whoah, why'd you have to ruin a good thread with hyperbole. Valkyria Chronicles has amazing presentation, beautiful art, and interesting/fun combat mechanics...but it completely fails as a strategy game. JRPG puzzle game with tactical combat is more accurate. Unfortunate though, I wanted to love it as a strategy game.

 

[WanderingWind]

Steam, maybe, the other ones, not so much. The ratio of also-ran twin stick shooter and tower defense game to things of actual interest are too high on console DD.

I am well aware of the existence Atlus, From Software and Platinum Games have carved for themselves, but once again, there needs to be a lot more going on of the sort for it to be considered a viable endeavour. A recreation of the SNES/PS2 era golden age these movements certainly are not.

Yeah, except for right now, this second, is the golden age of gaming. There has never been more platforms, more genres, more entries into each genre than there is right now. There are some genres that are currently not in vogue, but on the whole, gaming is far more healthy than the SNES days where the system was locked down, expensive, at a fixed price point and had no indie development whatsoever.

You can't call the SNES days golden and talk about the lamentable lack of independent development in the same breath. Those days saw the rise of many of the finest games ever made, but we also have the great luxury of looking back at it from now, when the immense amount of crapware is all but forgotten. As are the ridiculous development cycles, the 70 dollar cartridges and the 2 viable console and supremely fragmented PC markets.

 

[ScionOfTheRisingSun]

I don't get this mentality. What makes it more viable is that not everybody is doing it. Once the market is saturated with mid-range titles its less lucrative, not more.

The mid range development mentality is one that has had many proponents for a very, very long time. Just hop onto Gamasutra and read most comments, chances are you will see someone mentioning the need for flexibility in the pricing and budgeting of games below the standard 60 ducat a pop AAA segment.

There is a reason for that, right now a lot of developers are suffering because everyone has to aim for the the same AAA bar and simply put, at least in Japan, a lot of small timers are going belly up. It is disheartening. If a more crowded mid range is less lucrative then a mega crowded AAA loft is even less so and when everything below that is considered unthinkable you get a market that is growing narrower, and narrower.

Think about it, would anyone have given indie devs the time of the day a mere 10 years ago?

No, people were to busy being served a very varied feast of games with equal parity, the current market is so tightly wound around the waste that even the small fry doing something remotely different can get people's attention. I have a very bad felling about where this is all headed.

Yeah, except for right now, this second, is the golden age of gaming. There has never been more platforms, more genres, more entries into each genre than there is right now. There are some genres that are currently not in vogue, but on the whole, gaming is far more healthy than the SNES days where the system was locked down, expensive, at a fixed price point and had no indie development whatsoever.

You can't call the SNES days golden and talk about the lamentable lack of independent development in the same breath. Those days saw the rise of many of the finest games ever made, but we also have the great luxury of looking back at it from now, when the immense amount of crapware is all but forgotten. As are the ridiculous development cycles, the 70 dollar cartridges and the 2 viable console and supremely fragmented PC markets.

Bu but, the SNES market is a lot like the indie market of today, in fact most indies are imitating aesthetics and game design from that era. Except for the difference in sales price (10 ducat DD versus 70 ducat cartridge) everything else was pretty similar. Small teams, small budgets, short dev cycles and big unrestrained ideas. There were shovel ware back then, sure, but hey, there are plenty of that coming from indies today as well.

As for the PC market, I would argue developers were putting forward their best foot in the early 90's, fractured or not. I should know I played most of their games but I was gradually turned off by the platform's by the starting trend of the market narrowing in the mid to late 90's in tandem with devs becoming obsessed with outdoing one another mostly in terms of technological prowess alone.

 

[DatBreh]

Valkyria Chronicles is interesting, in that it cratered at launch and then long tailed its way to over a million sales.

I think a strategy game with fast paced gameplay, drop-in/drop-out multiplayer and AAA production values would do well on the consoles, but it seems that no one is willing to take a chance on one.

1st, do you have a link to it selling a million units?

2nd, sales arent the only thing that matter, you also have to take into account the price point at which the game sold. Game A that sold 500K copies at full $60 MSRP makes a lot more money than Game B that sold 50K at $60 then 950K at bargin bin $20.

Also his Ray Charles analogy is correct. Kids these days dont even recognize when people sample one of his old hits anymore, and if you play some of his music they dont want to hear it. Hell artists who debuted 10 years ago are finding it hard to connect with new fans.

 

[tiff]

Whoah, whoah, why'd you have to ruin a good thread with hyperbole. Valkyria Chronicles has amazing presentation, beautiful art, and interesting/fun combat mechanics...but it completely fails as a strategy game. JRPG puzzle game with tactical combat is more accurate. Unfortunate though, I wanted to love it as a strategy game.

Hyperbole? I'm with him. VC is far and away the best game I've played this generation.

 

[erragal]

Hyperbole? I'm with him. VC is far and away the best game I've played this generation.

Why does everyone fail to acknowledge my perfectly reasonable point that Valkyria Chronicles lacks actual strategy/challenge? Every mission is intended to be scout rushed and for all the lovely ideas inherent in the gameplay systems they are completely irrelevant when there's no incentive to actually utilize them. It's an enormous flaw in the game and whether it's your FAVORITE game (Which I understand the reasons why, believe me...it OOZES style) you have to completely lack objectivity and sense for game design to believe it's the -BEST- game, especially the best strategy game.

That's all. Not trying to be mean.

 

[NullPointer]

Why does everyone fail to acknowledge my perfectly reasonable point that Valkyria Chronicles lacks actual strategy/challenge? Every mission is intended to be scout rushed and for all the lovely ideas inherent in the gameplay systems they are completely irrelevant when there's no incentive to actually utilize them. It's an enormous flaw in the game and whether it's your FAVORITE game (Which I understand the reasons why, believe me...it OOZES style) you have to completely lack objectivity and sense for game design to believe it's the -BEST- game, especially the best strategy game.

That's all. Not trying to be mean.

Just because you CAN cheese the game doesn't mean that you have to cheese it, or that the game was built for cheese.

I played it as a strategy game and loved just about every minute of it.

 

[erragal]

Just because you CAN cheese the game doesn't mean that you have to cheese it, or that the game was built for cheese.

I played it as a strategy game and loved just about every minute of it.

It's not really cheesing though; the games inherent incentives systems (Extra rewards which give you more interesting weapons/awards) requires that you utilize the fastest strategy. It's the intended way to complete the game, not an exploit.

The worst part is that they didn't even fix the problem in the sequel. It's clearly an intentional design decision, and a terrible one.

 

[SapientWolf]

1st, do you have a link to it selling a million units?

2nd, sales arent the only thing that matter, you also have to take into account the price point at which the game sold. Game A that sold 500K copies at full $60 MSRP makes a lot more money than Game B that sold 50K at $60 then 950K at bargin bin $20.

Also his Ray Charles analogy is correct. Kids these days dont even recognize when people sample one of his old hits anymore, and if you play some of his music they dont want to hear it. Hell artists who debuted 10 years ago are finding it hard to connect with new fans.

Actually, I think I got VC mixed up with Bayonetta.

 

[jay]

You do know that an internal SEGA team made the best turn based strategy game this generation, if not ever, then put it on a console and watched it bomb, hard, right?

The Shining series was always an umbrella term used for a bunch different games of different genres, one of them was a strategy RPG. Shining Force is one of my all time favourite games but that type of strategy RPG has been made aplenty since. Just look into Tactics Ogre, Advance Wars, Fire Emblem and Final Fantasy Tactics among other.

What does VC have to do with Shining Force Neo not being turn based because Sega said turn based games are too old fashioned? My point was that Take-Two is not the first to say stupid things about turn based being too dated to appeal to people.

This is a market driven by the dynamics of consumerism, if a profitable niche exists then it will get filled out automatically because that is how consumerism works, it is much like evolution in that regard.

I do disagree with this idealistic view of how things work. The market is also driven by what is offered.

 

[WanderingWind]

Bu but, the SNES market is a lot like the indie market of today, in fact most indies are imitating aesthetics and game design from that era. Except for the difference in sales price (10 ducat DD versus 70 ducat cartridge) everything else was pretty similar. Small teams, small budgets, short dev cycles and big unrestrained ideas. There were shovel ware back then, sure, but hey, there are plenty of that coming from indies today as well.

As for the PC market, I would argue developers were putting forward their best foot in the early 90's, fractured or not. I should know I played most of their games but I was gradually turned off by the platform's by the starting trend of the market narrowing in the mid to late 90's in tandem with devs becoming obsessed with outdoing one another mostly in terms of technological prowess alone.

The difference in price completely invalidates your earlier argument that everything today is 60 bucks. It's not. Gaming has never had the wide range of prices it has today. This is straight up factual.

Triple AAA games have always had large teams and large budgets. The amount of money and amount of people have increased, sure. But once again, not for every game. One of the single most profitable games ever created came out two years ago, for the PC, and was created by a single person.

You have a very strong strand of nostalgia running through your posts. "Sure, shovelware existed back then..." "Games were better in the 90s..." etc. It's one thing to claim that games were better in the nebulous period known as "back then." It's an entirely different thing to claim the industry was somehow more friendly to indie devs, or that the industry was better off existing at a largely singular price point.

 

[diffusionx]

Just because you CAN cheese the game doesn't mean that you have to cheese it, or that the game was built for cheese.

I played it as a strategy game and loved just about every minute of it.

I feel like the game, at least the grading system, was built for cheese. And when I tried playing it as a real strategy game, I got bored fast, as the AI wasn't very good, and the battles took forever. And since I took a while, I got poor grades, which meant I had to grind more. The only way the game's pacing (which includes the grading and reward unlocking) was tolerable was when I was cheesing. But then the game is just worthless as a strategy game.

Nice graphics though.

 

[ScionOfTheRisingSun]

Whoah, whoah, why'd you have to ruin a good thread with hyperbole. Valkyria Chronicles has amazing presentation, beautiful art, and interesting/fun combat mechanics...but it completely fails as a strategy game. JRPG puzzle game with tactical combat is more accurate. Unfortunate though, I wanted to love it as a strategy game.

Well my experience with the game was that this was the first time in a turn based strategy game where I was constantly thinking and planning so many moves ahead. Most other games of the genre have me resorting to the same old tactic or two that require little forethought because they most rely on similar mechanics but Valkyria felt fresh and unfamiliar.

Besides it had some of the most clever level designs that I've ever seen. Every scenario felt and played so different that I never felt like I could relax and fall into a routine. The game always introduced a fresh twist to throw a wrench into my fallen upon strategies.

It was like playing chess with the objective of finishing an opponent with least number of moves and then challenging a completly other opponent with a different playing style. Each to their own though.

 

[Bigfoot]

I don't care what they do with X-com on consoles... I agree a strategy game would likely fail.

What I would like is a port / remake of the original X-com for the iPad. Just take the original game, update the graphics and improve the UI for touch interface, and maybe make some fixes to speed things up or fix any known bugs. Just small changes are needed... they don't need to change too much. Do this and I would be a happy man.

I think a small team could do this in a few months and they could make a nice profit selling it for $4.99.

 

[erragal]

Well my experience with the game was that this was the first time in a turn based strategy game where I was constantly thinking and planning so many moves ahead. Most other games of the genre have me resorting to the same old tactic or two that require little forethought because they most rely on similar mechanics but Valkyria felt fresh and unfamiliar.

Besides it had some of the most clever level designs that I've ever seen. Every scenario felt and played so different that I never felt like I could relax and fall into a routine. The game always introduced a fresh twist to throw a wrench into my fallen upon strategies.

It was like playing chess with the objective of finishing an opponent with least number of moves and then challenging a completly other opponent with a different playing style. Each to their own though.

I actually understand why people like it and appreciate explaining specifically what you enjoyed. Keep in mind that I don't consider it to be a bad game; I just think it's horribly miscast as a strategy game. Should be considered a puzzle game; each stage is built around figuring out the least number of actions you need to take for your scout to finish the mission.

 

[tiff]

Why does everyone fail to acknowledge my perfectly reasonable point that Valkyria Chronicles lacks actual strategy/challenge? Every mission is intended to be scout rushed and for all the lovely ideas inherent in the gameplay systems they are completely irrelevant when there's no incentive to actually utilize them.

Personally, in all my time playing VC I never abused scout rushing. I knew it existed before I even bought the game, but I deliberately ignored it because I wanted to enjoy the lovely gameplay systems you mentioned. I mean, I'm not failing to acknowledge those flaws, because they're totally there and should absolutely be fixed, but at the same time they don't have to ruin the game for you.

I mean, it's a little ridiculous that we're talking about broken gameplay mechanics supposedly ruining games in a thread about X-Com.

It's an enormous flaw in the game and whether it's your FAVORITE game (Which I understand the reasons why, believe me...it OOZES style) you have to completely lack objectivity and sense for game design to believe it's the -BEST- game, especially the best strategy game.

I never really got the difference between the two. Why would my favorite game be anything but the best game? The purpose of a game is to provide entertainment. Valkyria Chonicles is the most entertaining game I've played this generation, thus it is the best. That's how I always saw it.

It's not really cheesing though; the games inherent incentives systems (Extra rewards which give you more interesting weapons/awards) requires that you utilize the fastest strategy. It's the intended way to complete the game, not an exploit.

The worst part is that they didn't even fix the problem in the sequel. It's clearly an intentional design decision, and a terrible one.

I dunno, I got good ranks on most missions and I barely even used orders, let alone abused them on scouts. It's definitely not required to beat the game, or even beat it without grinding.

 

[Vinci]

It must have been pretty embarrassing to sell less than an archaic strategy game like StarCraft 2, but thankfully it wasn't their fault.

NICE

 

[Game Guru]

The only thing that companies need to be worried about is making money, and they aren't going to make money trying to jump on the long-sailed Call of Duty boat. Publishers think people aren't going to buy a B-Game, much like B-Movies no longer exist in theaters, except that B-Movies do still get made and still make profit. They've just become Direct-To-Video releases and appear on SyFy. If a niche game could make money with a lower budget, then by all means, the game should still be made. The problem is this "AAA or Die" mentality which ends up showing that "Die" is the more popular result.

 

[[Nintex]]

What the fuck, bunch of idiots, that Ray Charles quote makes no sense at all in any context.

 

[Busaiku]

Kanye West is Ray Charles?

 

[Dreams-Visions]

Money talks...and gamers are buying FPS and sports.

What the fuck can you say? If people were buying RTS as much as they were buying other genres, this commentary wouldn't fucking exist.

:-(

 

[Vinci]

Money talks...and gamers are buying FPS and sports.

What the fuck can you say? If people were buying RTS as much as they were buying other genres, this commentary wouldn't fucking exist.

:-(

PC gamers buy RTSs just fine, thanks.

 

[Busaiku]

PC gamers buy RTSs just fine, thanks.

PC gamers are myth.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

The only thing that companies need to be worried about is making money, and they aren't going to make money trying to jump on the long-sailed Call of Duty boat. Publishers think people aren't going to buy a B-Game, much like B-Movies no longer exist in theaters, except that B-Movies do still get made and still make profit. They've just become Direct-To-Video releases and appear on SyFy. If a niche game could make money with a lower budget, then by all means, the game should still be made. The problem is this "AAA or Die" mentality which ends up showing that "Die" is the more popular result.

What I wonder about with something like this is whether or not it was ever pitched as a strategy game in the first place. Meaning, I'm curious as to whether or not it was, from minute one, a misguided and cynical stab at taking an older IP and attempting to cash in on it in the only genre that is perceived to be profitable, or if there was a stage in its life when it was in fact supposed to be more in line with its predecessors only to be switched up at the request of an executive who thought the money going into it was too high, and the switch was intended to salvage a perceived money sink.

 

[WanderingWind]

PC gamers are myth.

I am Legend?

 

[subversus]

I am Legend?

yes, and those 5 million people who bought Starcraft II. Also those 5-6 million who bought Dawn of War 1-2.

 

[Opiate]

As others have pointed out, Starcraft 2 is almost certainly over 5 Million sold, (4.5 million 6 months ago, and these games have legs). Apparently, that does not count because it's a Blizzard game.

League of Legends drew 1.7 Million viewers to their recent championship. That's not people playing the game, mind you; that's just people watching others play the game, so it's reasonable to assume that the playerbase is quite a bit larger. The playerbase has gotten so huge that they were forced to split up the EU servers to save space. In addition, Riot Games, which makes League of Legends, recently got bought out by a Chinese firm for 400 million dollars, even though they've only made a single game in their history.

But they don't count, because League of Legends is free to play (even though they make lots of money off the game, clearly).

DotA has an active userbase of 7-11 million players, even today, years after its release. But it also doesn't count, because it's a mod of a pre-existing game.

This is before discussing Chess, which is played daily by more people today than play Call of Duty: Black Ops, even though Call of Duty is about 8 months old and Chess is well over 2 millinea old. But Chess doesn't count, because it's not really a video game.

And so any game that's mentioned will be dismissed -- not matter how popular, no matter how much revenue it generates -- unless it's sold for 60 dollars at retail for the Xbox 360. I think it's less that strategy games aren't popular than it is that strategy games aren't popular with the console-centric, teenage audience they cater to. That is almost certainly true.

 

[sp3000]

This guy thinks Bioshock 2 failed because of when it was released, hahaha.

You have to be pretty delusional to ignore that it was a crappy totally unnecessary sequel to a great game. I love publishing executives, grasping at every excuse they can find to justify why generic game number 1000 didn't sell well.

 

[kamspy]

Money talks...and gamers are buying FPS and sports.

What the fuck can you say? If people were buying RTS as much as they were buying other genres, this commentary wouldn't fucking exist.

:-(

Pretty sure Dawn of War II, Company of Heroes, Civ, and Starcraft sell pretty well.

 

[pvpness]

It's as sad as it is hilarious that we can get an updated UFO for WiiWare, Move, 3/DS, and iOS.

I wish them luck with this game but it's gonna take a miracle to arouse my interest and I'm an X-Com whore. I bought Enforcer new. :\

 

[Steve Youngblood]

Money talks...and gamers are buying FPS and sports.

What the fuck can you say? If people were buying RTS as much as they were buying other genres, this commentary wouldn't fucking exist.

:-(

Well, okay. That's fine and good. However, it doesn't really clarify why an old franchise that doesn't have a lot of cachet with the mainstream/dudebro/non-core/whatever catchall term we're using these days for everyone who's not us needed to be revived as an FPS game.

 

[XiaNaphryz]

PC gamers are myth.

 

[Vinci]

I think it's less that strategy games aren't popular than it is that strategy games aren't popular with the console-centric, teenage audience they cater to. That is almost certainly true.

Exactly why I commented about PC gamers. We are clearly interesting in the genre. Console folks just aren't, and that sucks because it means we may have to go without more often than we should.

 

[WanderingWind]

As others have pointed out, Starcraft 2 is almost certainly over 5 Million sold, (4.5 million 6 months ago, and these games have legs).

Apparently, that does not count because it's a Blizzard game.

League of Legends drew 1.7 Million viewers to their recent championship. That's not people playing the game, mind you; that's just people watching others play the game, so it's reasonable to assume that the playerbase is quite a bit larger. The playerbase has gotten so huge that they were forced to split up the EU servers to save space. In addition, Riot Games, which makes League of Legends, recently got bought out by a Chinese firm for 400 million dollars, even though they've only made a single game in their history.

But they don't count, because League of Legends is free to play (even though they make lots of money off the game, clearly).

DotA has an active userbase of 7-11 million players, even today, years after its release. But it also doesn't count, because it's a mod of a pre-existing game.

This is before discussing Chess, which is played daily by more people today than play Call of Duty: Black Ops, even though Call of Duty is about 8 months old and Chess is well over 2 millinea old.

Or we could talk about Go. Or many others. I think it's less that strategy games aren't popular than it is that strategy games aren't popular with the console-centric, teenage audience they cater to. That is almost certainly true.

Also see; Minecraft. Dragon Age. Mass Effect. LA Noire. GTA. Gran Turismo. RDR. Mario. Uncharted. MvC3. Street Fighter IV. Portal.

Etc.

 

[HK-47]

T2 don't want to put the marketing push behind a game that won't sell CoD-style numbers, and a TBS X-Com game would sell, but not at those levels.

Umm neither will XCoM...or any shooter not called CoD. I highly doubt they think its gonna do CoD numbers. This is something ive been seeing a lot of lately on GAF. Such and such devs wants CoD numbers. No they dont. They want 3 million or 5 million in sales. They want things that help make CoD appealing in their games. That doesnt mean they expect CoD numbers. Its getting annoying.

Now do I think XCOM will do 5 million? No. Do I think they are making a mistake by not diversifying and doing multi tier budgets? Yes. Do I think Strategy can make you the dough? Fuck yeah, ask Relic, CA or Paradox. But T2 is one of if not the biggest pushers of the blockbuster model. They will never do the smart, long term thing.

 

[Reuenthal]

I think this is a self fulfilling prophecy. If CNC3 came out today instead of 2007 it would sell very hot. Same with an Age of Empires games. Strategy games in general were doing relatively better a few years ago while lately they are more dead which I attribute to myopic business decisions from people like the guy this thread is about. If you build great Strategy games the consumers will come. PC gaming in particular has room for more games, and more games can sell well even if they are PC exclusive. There is some room there, granted the room is not infinite, but there is room to be filled with games that... do not exist currently. Trying to create games that are multiplatform isn't a bad idea but oversaturation in the market, and the profitability of RTS and other strategy games is not to be ignored. Because if you do ignore them, you might just lose profit that you could have had.

Thankfully companies like CA, Blizzard even Firaxis have played it smart and have gotten the money for it.

 

[The Technomancer]

Pretty sure Dawn of War II, Company of Heroes, Civ, and Starcraft sell pretty well.

Hell, Civ V has been constantly in the top ten most played games on Steam since launch. It currently has something like 20,000 players in game.

 

[Jin34]

As others have pointed out, Starcraft 2 is almost certainly over 5 Million sold, (4.5 million 6 months ago, and these games have legs). Apparently, that does not count because it's a Blizzard game.

Indeed, Blizzard has joined Nintendo in the "we don't count" club.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

Hell, Civ V has been constantly in the top ten most played games on Steam since launch. It currently has something like 20,000 players in game.

The preorder for Heroes VI also seems to be consistently in the best-selling list, for whatever that's worth.

 

[HK-47]

Steam, maybe, the other ones, not so much. The ratio of also-ran twin stick shooter and tower defense game to things of actual interest are too high on console DD.

I am well aware of the existence Atlus, From Software and Platinum Games have carved for themselves, but once again, there needs to be a lot more going on of the sort for it to be considered a viable endeavour. A recreation of the SNES/PS2 era golden age these movements certainly are not.

Atlus and FS have. Platinum still hasnt seen a real success yet though.

 

[HK-47]

Hell, Civ V has been constantly in the top ten most played games on Steam since launch. It currently has something like 20,000 players in game.

Yeah it proves even a mediocre game can be successful!