@Jazz_Sandwich said:
There is no way that we as the general public are providing quantitative data ('hard evidence' as you put it) that is not already known to a professional developer who goes in day after day to work in the industry. A company that has been at this for decades, working under a publisher in the game since 1960, is going to already have market data at their disposal. Especially data for their own titles or the competitors for them. A rando on the forums with access to Google isn't providing groundbreaking new hard evidence. These numbers can be useful to back up arguments against fellow forum members, but if you actually think you are educating any developers with these posts I don't know what to tell you.
Actually, data from 5-10 years ago is completely irrelevant.
Demographics change.
Trends change.
Players perception on the genres change.
There is a reason why RTS and MMO genres aren't half as popular as they were 10-15 years ago, data from these time periods couldn't be any more irrelevant.
The moment you start relying on anything older but last and current year data is the moment you're out of the industry.
You either milk genres that were milked to death(hello Call of Duty and any sports game with Fifa on top) or you appeal to a niche that is popular for a second only to be forgotten following year or two('member all the zombie survival games? They were MASSIVE in popularity - where are they now? Its flagship, Day-Z has sunk ages ago) or you take a risk and try to revive older genre which used to be popular by trying something new(what C&C4 and DoW3 did) or just go easy and lazy way of selling old product again to nostalgia driven crowd(AoE2 HD remake, SC:BW remastered, where neither brings anything new to the table, but both reap the money off your old good memories).
While devs obviously possess much better data to analyze, yet again, that data needs to be gathered constantly and you can't rely on past experience, unless you're Blizzard and able to pump into marketing more money then games production cost themselves with SC2 being a prime example - I did not got SC2, because the day it was released it already had extremely dated graphic and mechanics, yet millions of people fell to blizzards marketing and got inferior product only because it was wrapped nicely despite not being innovative at all.
@Draconix said:
Second, there is still those who like this game, even if it is a handfull, besides this game sold enough for at least single expansion, and as I know, expansion depends on how much this game had sold. Who knows, if there will be ever a expansion for Dow3, I doubt of course, but I can at least dream of it.
Considering it was sold for 20 Euro +Free Weekend
Like 51,100 ± 6,815 (14.74%) did play it at all
So lets give it another 2 weeks and look how many will be left on 24.11.2017
would that numbers justify farther investments ?
I understand there might be not a expansion, but as Psycholord said, it is possible for a RTS game got a expansion, even with such low playercount. The best example would be Ashes of Singularity who has currently fewer players than Dow3, yet it is still supported by devs. So even if it seems impossible, I still believe that there might be a expansion for Dow3, if Relic won't give up on this title. In the end, every new game should be a marathon, not a sprint, doesn't it?
Interesting is, that by free weekend. 328.000-436.000 = 108.000 did try it out http://steamspy.com/app/285190
It sounds somehow bad, if we know Relic does sell usually million of game copies
As RTS player, I lost so many companies and titles to same symptoms.
(Good games, dumbed down, robbed of identity, corrupted to the core
to appeal a non existing E-Sports/Warcraft 3/MOBA audience.)
We had so nice Dune/C&C casual RTS with Story cutscenes,
but was killed with Command & Conquer 4: Tiberian Twilight,
oldest and best sold RTS Series of all time, killed by pure greed and incompetence.
Empire Earth was a neat 3D version of Age of Empires,
killed with Empire Earth 3, corrupted into inferior Starcraft
My beloved Age of Empires Developer Ensemble Studios,
killed off resurrected as mindless zombie that does make crap games
like Age of Empires Online or MOBA Orcs Must Die! Unchained. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_Entertainment
@Katitof said:
I did not got SC2, because the day it was released it already had extremely dated graphic and mechanics, yet millions of people fell to blizzards marketing and got inferior product only because it was wrapped nicely despite not being innovative at all.
But the sold number do prove, dated graphic and mechanics don't matter,
if you give your fan base the game they want. SC2 is best sold RTS of all time.
Starcraft 2 does take me as fan serious and gives me exactly what I as fan wanted.
I'm so sorry that your beloved companies and RTS series was killed, but this is Life. Everything whats good have to be ended someday, it cannot be continued infinitely. That's why if Dow3 has to be the last of Dawn of War titles, then so be it I'll accept that. But there is no point to stay with the past eternally, we have to move forward with the time's spirit.
So even if Dow series will die, then okay, but I will still playing Dow3, as long as I will have fancy for it. But there are other games that I would like to play as well, even if they are mediocre ones.
But who knows, if there will be a expansion for Dow3, even if it seems to be now a task impossible to do that. But I can still dream of it.
@Katitof said:
The moment you start relying on anything older but last and current year data is the moment you're out of the industry.
You either milk genres that were milked to death(hello Call of Duty and any sports game with Fifa on top) or you appeal to a niche that is popular for a second only to be forgotten following year or two('member all the zombie survival games? They were MASSIVE in popularity - where are they now? Its flagship, Day-Z has sunk ages ago) or you take a risk and try to revive older genre which used to be popular by trying something new(what C&C4 and DoW3 did) or just go easy and lazy way of selling old product again to nostalgia driven crowd(AoE2 HD remake, SC:BW remastered, where neither brings anything new to the table, but both reap the money off your old good memories).
Actually if we speak about Call of Duty.
Call of Duty was always vs Battlefield
For years they both did splendid sold their games,
but suddenly and completely unexpected Call of Duty started to "modernize" their game,
with modern day elements. Call of Duty®: Infinite Warfare is
undeniable one of the greatest and obvious "we saw it total coming" fails.
Battlefield is still alive, but situation by Call of Duty is just terrible
Its just ridiculous how again it gets 80% by bought reviews on Metacritic, but fan base is 50%
And I can't wait to see their sold numbers. Promised back to the WW2 roots, but
delivered Black woman in German Uniform that holds a Russian Rifle to appeal a non existing E-Sport Audience.
Such case like by Call of Duty: WWII is obvious for any player.
Problem is simple, there are companies that do deliver bad products and don't admit it,
but there are people on forums that say this is fine and professional reviews who give anything 10 out of 10.
@StarSauron said:
Interesting is, that by free weekend. 328.000-436.000 = 108.000 did try it out http://steamspy.com/app/285190
It sounds somehow bad, if we know Relic does sell usually million of game copies
That million of copies is sold within 5-10 years, not 6 months after release.
We had so nice Dune/C&C casual RTS with Story cutscenes,
but was killed with Command & Conquer 4: Tiberian Twilight,
oldest and best sold RTS Series of all time, killed by pure greed and incompetence.
It was greed and incompetence, you've got that right, but it was publishers greed and incompetence, not studios.
There is a nice yt vid about C&C series history and how EA tried to squeeze money out of it so tight and fast that they have killed the studio responsible for it, forcing them to cut content, features and release prematurely.
How is that relevant to RTS discussion?
Overlord was never RTS. RPGame with strategy elements is not RTS.
My beloved Age of Empires Developer Ensemble Studios,
killed off resurrected as mindless zombie that does make crap games
like Age of Empires Online or MOBA Orcs Must Die! Unchained. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_Entertainment
I suppose you're not following orcs must die unchained for a long time.
Its not moba for a loooooooooong time now, just regular OMD.
AoEO was pretty decent game, not sure what you're ranting about here, PvP was both, with and without gear stats so you could play whatever you preffered and PvE parts appealed greatly to casual crowd. It wasn't perfect game, far from it, it was terribly monetized(waaaaaaay too player friendly for F2P game in RTS niche), but it wasn't bad game in itself.
@Katitof said:
I did not got SC2, because the day it was released it already had extremely dated graphic and mechanics, yet millions of people fell to blizzards marketing and got inferior product only because it was wrapped nicely despite not being innovative at all.
But the sold number do prove, dated graphic and mechanics don't matter,
if you give your fan base the game they want. SC2 is best sold RTS of all time.
Starcraft 2 does take me as fan serious and gives me exactly what I as fan wanted.
The numbers only prove that gameplay, graphics, innovation or lack of it completely doesn't matter if you're good at marketing and have known name.
People are in denial about blizzard being able to make a crap game and believe everything they push out is gold and diamonds, when reality is, its not - its just another moderate game, but marketing and hype built for it sells it.
Look at Overwatch.
Its NOT the best hero shooter around, its NOT new idea, its very OK game, but that's it. Just OK.
But it was sold to the world as the best thing under the sun and many are convinced of it just because its blizzard.
You do NOT need superior product to sell it as long as you appeal to the right group and market it good.
Best example of it is the whole existence of Apple-they sell stuff that's pretty, but isn't half as functional as what competition offers, but it still sells its stuff for tremendously high cost.
Quality of product is completely irrelevant as long as you invest enough in marketing.
I'm so sorry that your beloved companies and RTS series was killed, but this is Life. Everything whats good have to be ended someday, it cannot be continued infinitely. That's why if Dow3 has to be the last of Dawn of War titles, then so be it I'll accept that. But there is no point to stay with the past eternally, we have to move forward with the time's spirit.
So even if Dow series will die, then okay, but I will still playing Dow3, as long as I will have fancy for it. But there are other games that I would like to play as well, even if they are mediocre ones.
But who knows, if there will be a expansion for Dow3, even if it seems to be now a task impossible to do that. But I can still dream of it.
But it was not necessary by all the Series.
C&C sold each year another million copies and there was simply no reason to kill it off.
But somehow they came up with the idea
to appeal a non existing E-Sports/Warcraft 3/MOBA audience
made Red Alert 3 that did fail horribly
Instead of learn and admit the problem,
they alienated even harder the fan base by Remove core mechanics like Base Build in C&C4TT.
The RTS Series did die off, if their concept was changed, not because people were bored of their concept.
The RTS Series did die off, if their concept was changed, not because people were bored of their concept.
So by your logic, it would better for RTS series, if its core mechanics would only stagnate rather than trying something new?
Its like innovation was a plague of games, even if there is a infinite potential in gaming industries.
Well, the thing is, when it´s an series, people exspect certain features in the way they started to love them and then to build up upon them, and not turn 180 degree
Keep ignoring the fact that the paradigm for each game is different and so are the levels of polish. That's why DoW 2 got a lot of ++heresy redacted++ in the beginning.
The RTS Series did die off, if their concept was changed, not because people were bored of their concept.
So by your logic, it would better for RTS series, if its core mechanics would only stagnate rather than trying something new?
Its like innovation was a plague of games, even if there is a infinite potential in gaming industries.
Well, the thing is, when it´s an series, people exspect certain features in the way they started to love them and then to build up upon them, and not turn 180 degree
Like Metal Gear series going from tight corridors to somewhat open world?
Or Final Fantasy going from turn based combat to active action game combat?
Or like Battlefield series going to modern or futuristic warfare, despite the game being loved for its feel of WW2?
Or Assassins Creed going from game about assassins and their missions to property management with treasure hunting and naval warfare in between to the current open world?
Or The Witcher series going from heavily instanced world to open world, changing how combat plays completely from game to game?
Or Warcraft 3 adding heroes, creeps and RPG elements over Warcraft 2 raw RTS?
Or Super Mario going places so hard that they haven't covered only survival horror(I think) and still 95% of it was a major success?
Legend of Zelda series making MAJOR gameplay changes all the time and still being extremely popular?
@StarSauron said:
Yes, but if a company is this old, are the founders still around who have the know how what to do?
Ignite the torch is one thing, carry it is another.
Delivering something like DoW3, does question if they are up to date and in touch with the market.
@Katitof said:
Actually, data from 5-10 years ago is completely irrelevant.
Demographics change.
Trends change.
Players perception on the genres change.
My point when I mentioned the age of SEGA and the length of time they have been working is that they have been players in a volatile and changing industry for decades. This was to reinforce my point that posting publicly available sales figures on forums isn't educating anybody responsible for actually creating and publishing DoW3, as this was the stated intent of posting them. Or somehow thinking that because they made a game you dislike it was because they couldn't understand basic information anybody with an internet connection can obtain.
@Nassir_Amit said:
hat all has nothing to do with Dawn of war and 40k!
Your point was literally for franchise to repeat the same thing over and over, because that's what people want.
I have proven to you, using most famous and successful franchises how dead wrong you are and without these huge swings in features or completely changing how the game plays IS the way for games to progress.
The SC hate ofrelic fans is still a thing i see.
SC2 sold like mad because it had the best campaign in RTS history and delivered exactly the MP game its fans had been hoping for. And behold, 7 years and 2 expos later it still has 15000+ spikes every day. Get over it.
Regarding DoW3:
Saying it crashed because it changed things is too easy. Innovation has often been really successful in gaming history.
The thing is, they designed a game for...well, for whom exactly?
I think they simply midcalculates the market.
Its a lot of things coming together, really.
Art style. I dont mind it that much, but lots of ppl hated it. And i dont think ANYone would have lamented a "traditional" art style. They shouldve seen this coming. If at least theparticle effects werent so ridicolous... Mistake 1.
Killing Sync kills and lots of other unit animations. Together with point 1, this alienated a lot of the "grimdark, waaaaagh" guys and lots of those who just want a good spectacle from DoW.
Simplifying base building. This alienated looooots of people from alot of different groups.
MOBA elements and moba- marketing.
I dont even count the elites into this , RTS have had heroes for a long time. But only powercore mode, with heroes, this artstyle, tons of activatable abilities fir normal units, and then you go on and talk about MOBA influences?? Jesus christ relic, are you suicidal?
No SP/coop content.Okayish campaign. Not bad, but not enough to really make the solo player happy. No Last Stand.
6.no cover/buildings/retreat etc
So, lets see.
Your game is not for the CoH/DoW 2 types, obviously.
Its not for the Ageof Empire types. Too little basebuilding, too many micro and abilities.
Its not for the hardcore Starcraft player. They play Starcraft. This game is too slow, not explosive enough for their liking.
Its not for the hardcore MOBA player. They play MOBAs.
So who is it for?
Guys who are a little of everything I guess. And Im sure they exist. Im one of them - being kinda tired of the rough competition after years of SC2, but still wanting to play a relatively competitive, relatively classic-RTS.
350000 or so ppl bought this, after all. Not bad in and of itself.
But what did these ppl find (not me, i bought cheap later)?
A 30 bucks game sold for 60 bucks, with almost no maps and a single gamemode, which isnt evena gamemode anyone asked for.
Not quite sure how they ever thought releasing the game in that state was a good idea. Had they released it the way it is now, it wouldnt have tanked so hard.
PS:and let us play annihilation in qm! Srsly relic!
No SP/coop content.Okayish campaign. Not bad, but not enough to really make the solo player happy. No Last Stand.
I think a lot of us are much more into MP than the average RTS customer. It can't overstated just how much the campaign hurt this game. I've seen a lot of reviews after the free weekend that are some variation of "Played campaign for 2 hours. Uninstalled. I heard this game is a MOBA. F%ck MOBAs" It's just another consequence of rushed development. I know Relic can make a better campaign.
The actual complaint at the end of the day is that you're spending 60 USD on something that gives you maybe 20 USD worth of content; three factions, a lackluster campaign, bare bones multiplayer.
Everything else was negotiable, they could have churned out an actual clone of SC and reskinned it but they still would have been behind because they don't have basic MP features that even SC1 had. Furthermore, the campaign would still have been ++heresy redacted++ by comparison under any metric.
@steinernein said: three factions, bare bones multiplayer.
I understand campaign as I wasn't blown away by it either, but the hell you're on about with this?
A LOT of RTS games does 3 factions and NEVER expands beyond that and that's apparently perfectly fine for them, but not for DoW to start with 3?
You can't praise starcraft like a mindless zealot in one line and bash dow in another when talking about faction numbers as that's about as high as hypocrisy can get.
Bare bones multiplayer?
Standard matchmaking - check.
Custom games with different objectives - check.(starcraft doesn't offer that)
What more you expect?
If you throw bland statements like that, better be prepared to elaborate.
The actual complaint at the end of the day is that you're spending 60 USD on something that gives you maybe 20 USD worth of content; three factions, a lackluster campaign, bare bones multiplayer.
Everything else was negotiable, they could have churned out an actual clone of SC and reskinned it but they still would have been behind because they don't have basic MP features that even SC1 had. Furthermore, the campaign would still have been ++heresy redacted++ by comparison under any metric.
I dont even think the 3 factions are the biggest deal. SC has been running on 3 factions for 20 years. Theres just not so much you could do with them. Ppl wanted epic mass attrittion wars, got power core instead.
And if i heard correctly, balance was horrendous the first few weeks, basically spam ASMs or gtfo. Such drives ppl off
What i really meant to say: This game didnt suffer as much from its core concept as from its execution.
The actual complaint at the end of the day is that you're spending 60 USD on something that gives you maybe 20 USD worth of content; three factions, a lackluster campaign, bare bones multiplayer.
Everything else was negotiable, they could have churned out an actual clone of SC and reskinned it but they still would have been behind because they don't have basic MP features that even SC1 had. Furthermore, the campaign would still have been ++heresy redacted++ by comparison under any metric.
I dont even think the 3 factions are the biggest deal. SC has been running on 3 factions for 20 years. Theres just not so much you could do with them. Ppl wanted epic mass attrittion wars, got power core instead.
If you're not able to defend 10k HP power core, you wouldn't be able to defend few 1k HP buildings, all that power core mode does is prevent SC2-like rush strats to have opponent build his base in center of your and press you there for early easy win.
And if i heard correctly, balance was horrendous the first few weeks, basically spam ASMs or gtfo. Such drives ppl off
And it still was incomparably better then DoW1 and 2 balance at release.
What i really meant to say: This game didnt suffer as much from its core concept as from its execution.
That's kind of a bland statement.
If you mean balance, then no RTS ever is balanced at release and single release day will provide more play hours then close testing would ever do by people who will quickly find best synergies and so on.
SC2 was equally terribly balanced at its release.
@steinernein said: three factions, bare bones multiplayer.
I understand campaign as I wasn't blown away by it either, but the hell you're on about with this?
A LOT of RTS games does 3 factions and NEVER expands beyond that and that's apparently perfectly fine for them, but not for DoW to start with 3?
You can't praise starcraft like a mindless zealot in one line and bash dow in another when talking about faction numbers as that's about as high as hypocrisy can get.
Bare bones multiplayer?
Standard matchmaking - check.
Custom games with different objectives - check.(starcraft doesn't offer that)
What more you expect?
If you throw bland statements like that, better be prepared to elaborate.
The world editor for SC1, as far as I know - and correct me if I am wrong - is way more robust than that of DoW3's (or any DoW really).
The three factions in Starcraft also got their own campaign, and quantity some times is its own quality.
Which brings me to DoW factions; they generally tend to be less dense and reusable than say Starcraft's factions or even the two factions of say Total Annihilation. Because of the way the game is designed, the toys you're given are almost never fully used; for example, you can't mass imperial knights, you can't mass terminators, but in games like SC you had a lot more flexibility -- the combinations were far greater. So, what DoW made up for that was in factions even if it was just mostly a reskin. You can chalk a lot of that to balance and that's fine, but at some point you have to wonder why even have something like the doctrine system.
As for bare bones multiplayer, that's a hyperbole on my part, oops; there still isn't an observer mode, there aren't free for alls either.
The actual complaint at the end of the day is that you're spending 60 USD on something that gives you maybe 20 USD worth of content; three factions, a lackluster campaign, bare bones multiplayer.
Everything else was negotiable, they could have churned out an actual clone of SC and reskinned it but they still would have been behind because they don't have basic MP features that even SC1 had. Furthermore, the campaign would still have been ++heresy redacted++ by comparison under any metric.
I dont even think the 3 factions are the biggest deal. SC has been running on 3 factions for 20 years. Theres just not so much you could do with them. Ppl wanted epic mass attrittion wars, got power core instead.
If you're not able to defend 10k HP power core, you wouldn't be able to defend few 1k HP buildings, all that power core mode does is prevent SC2-like rush strats to have opponent build his base in center of your and press you there for early easy win.
And if i heard correctly, balance was horrendous the first few weeks, basically spam ASMs or gtfo. Such drives ppl off
And it still was incomparably better then DoW1 and 2 balance at release.
What i really meant to say: This game didnt suffer as much from its core concept as from its execution.
That's kind of a bland statement.
If you mean balance, then no RTS ever is balanced at release and single release day will provide more play hours then close testing would ever do by people who will quickly find best synergies and so on.
SC2 was equally terribly balanced at its release.
Yes, power core mode prevents rushes to an extent. But it also drags games out endlessly.
And you forgot another thing i said: maps. There were not enough(still arent) and some suck, literally funneling you into lanes.
And no, SC2 was not terribly balanced at release.
It also had 1v1 up to 4v4, arcade, scenarios, and the campaign of course.
I actually agree with those that claim the SP is biggest failure of this game, by a long shot, and the rest of the game has suffered as a result. There are clearly some players who think the MP in this game is great, including myself, and it pushes buttons for me insofar as it is an RTS with the high stakes and breakneck pace of an FPS or other kind of game with strategy still being important. But I'm pretty sure there is only one person who plays this game and enjoys it offline, and that is Draconix on this forum, who plays the MP vs an AI! And I think that most of the bad reputation of the game is from players who did not want just a competetive RTS experience but a full game, and the SP in this game is so poor that with 1.3k hours of game time I have STILL not completed the campaign, because it is utter trash, the bits I played I played only for the cutscenes in between missions and to unlock Codex Macha skin. People bring up Power Core mode, balance, etc. but I think most people who are put off the game by these things are mostly people who have not played the game enough to understand how they work, and the reason people do not give the game the chance it deserves is because of the trash single player, which honestly, should not even have been in the game in my opinion, it should have been marketed as an MP only game with single player tutorial (which is effectively what the SP is).
RTS gamers in general expect the game to have an interest single player, unfortunately it seems like, as it stands now, the design of the game simply does not seem to be compatible with interesting single player, I think in part because of the uselessness of the AI.
What i really meant to say: This game didnt suffer as much from its core concept as from its execution.
That's why there's hope. If they have a great expansion and make a lot of noise about it, Relic can turn things around. I'm talking 2 races, great campaign, last stand and at least as many MP features as DOW1. At it's core DOW3 is a lot of fun, there just isn't anything to recommend other than the most basic MP game mode.
Well, the thing is, when it´s an series, people exspect certain features in the way they started to love them and then to build up upon them, and not turn 180 degree
Keep ignoring the fact that the paradigm for each game is different and so are the levels of polish. That's why DoW 2 got a lot of ++heresy redacted++ in the beginning.
Great, and DoW III gets now bashed, because it has yet again chosen another path
---------DoW2 innovation ? Melee we had in DoW1 and this cover system in CoH.
DoW1 and Company of Heroes worked, because it was from start on an own entity.
Well DoW2 was something for Company of Heroes fans, like Total War Warhammer is for Total War Fans.
Relic had some kind of Experience already with the combat mechanic they did put into DoW2.
It was based on the game they did make and had experience Company of Heroes.
It was kind of logical, "we fear Starcraft 2, so for now we play save,
here the combat gameplay you liked from Company of Heroes and it was properly advertised that way,
a completely new experience you newer had before, but actually just a reskin of Company of Heroes.
----------DoW3
so how many MOBAs/E-Sport/Warcraft 3 did make Relic ? Zero!
as Blizzard did make Starcraft2, it was already their third E-Sport RTS game.
Here is simply the problem by DoW3, it does lack massively on substance behind it.
Menu
Comments
Katitof
Actually, data from 5-10 years ago is completely irrelevant.
Demographics change.
Trends change.
Players perception on the genres change.
There is a reason why RTS and MMO genres aren't half as popular as they were 10-15 years ago, data from these time periods couldn't be any more irrelevant.
The moment you start relying on anything older but last and current year data is the moment you're out of the industry.
You either milk genres that were milked to death(hello Call of Duty and any sports game with Fifa on top) or you appeal to a niche that is popular for a second only to be forgotten following year or two('member all the zombie survival games? They were MASSIVE in popularity - where are they now? Its flagship, Day-Z has sunk ages ago) or you take a risk and try to revive older genre which used to be popular by trying something new(what C&C4 and DoW3 did) or just go easy and lazy way of selling old product again to nostalgia driven crowd(AoE2 HD remake, SC:BW remastered, where neither brings anything new to the table, but both reap the money off your old good memories).
While devs obviously possess much better data to analyze, yet again, that data needs to be gathered constantly and you can't rely on past experience, unless you're Blizzard and able to pump into marketing more money then games production cost themselves with SC2 being a prime example - I did not got SC2, because the day it was released it already had extremely dated graphic and mechanics, yet millions of people fell to blizzards marketing and got inferior product only because it was wrapped nicely despite not being innovative at all.
Retention above 10% is actually a HUGE number nowadays and most online games only dream about such high %.
Draconix
a RTS the way it should be.
I understand there might be not a expansion, but as Psycholord said, it is possible for a RTS game got a expansion, even with such low playercount. The best example would be Ashes of Singularity who has currently fewer players than Dow3, yet it is still supported by devs. So even if it seems impossible, I still believe that there might be a expansion for Dow3, if Relic won't give up on this title. In the end, every new game should be a marathon, not a sprint, doesn't it?
StarSauron
Interesting is, that by free weekend. 328.000-436.000 = 108.000 did try it out
http://steamspy.com/app/285190
It sounds somehow bad, if we know Relic does sell usually million of game copies
As RTS player, I lost so many companies and titles to same symptoms.
(Good games, dumbed down, robbed of identity, corrupted to the core
to appeal a non existing E-Sports/Warcraft 3/MOBA audience.)
We had so nice Dune/C&C casual RTS with Story cutscenes,
but was killed with Command & Conquer 4: Tiberian Twilight,
oldest and best sold RTS Series of all time, killed by pure greed and incompetence.
Empire Earth was a neat 3D version of Age of Empires,
killed with Empire Earth 3, corrupted into inferior Starcraft
Overlord Series, man I loved to command that funny minions
Overlord: Fellowship of Evil corrupted into a mediocre dumb MOBA/Diablo RPG
http://steamspy.com/dev/Triumph+Studios
http://steamspy.com/app/306670
My beloved Age of Empires Developer Ensemble Studios,
killed off resurrected as mindless zombie that does make crap games
like Age of Empires Online or MOBA Orcs Must Die! Unchained.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_Entertainment
But the sold number do prove, dated graphic and mechanics don't matter,
if you give your fan base the game they want. SC2 is best sold RTS of all time.
Starcraft 2 does take me as fan serious and gives me exactly what I as fan wanted.
Draconix
@StarSauron ,
I'm so sorry that your beloved companies and RTS series was killed, but this is Life. Everything whats good have to be ended someday, it cannot be continued infinitely. That's why if Dow3 has to be the last of Dawn of War titles, then so be it I'll accept that. But there is no point to stay with the past eternally, we have to move forward with the time's spirit.
So even if Dow series will die, then okay, but I will still playing Dow3, as long as I will have fancy for it. But there are other games that I would like to play as well, even if they are mediocre ones.
But who knows, if there will be a expansion for Dow3, even if it seems to be now a task impossible to do that. But I can still dream of it.
StarSauron
Actually if we speak about Call of Duty.
Call of Duty was always vs Battlefield
For years they both did splendid sold their games,
but suddenly and completely unexpected Call of Duty started to "modernize" their game,
with modern day elements. Call of Duty®: Infinite Warfare is
undeniable one of the greatest and obvious "we saw it total coming" fails.
Battlefield is still alive, but situation by Call of Duty is just terrible
Its just ridiculous how again it gets 80% by bought reviews on Metacritic, but fan base is 50%
http://steamspy.com/app/476600/
http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-4/call-of-duty-wwii
And I can't wait to see their sold numbers. Promised back to the WW2 roots, but
delivered Black woman in German Uniform that holds a Russian Rifle to appeal a non existing E-Sport Audience.
Such case like by Call of Duty: WWII is obvious for any player.
Problem is simple, there are companies that do deliver bad products and don't admit it,
but there are people on forums that say this is fine and professional reviews who give anything 10 out of 10.
Katitof
That million of copies is sold within 5-10 years, not 6 months after release.
It was greed and incompetence, you've got that right, but it was publishers greed and incompetence, not studios.
There is a nice yt vid about C&C series history and how EA tried to squeeze money out of it so tight and fast that they have killed the studio responsible for it, forcing them to cut content, features and release prematurely.
How is that relevant to RTS discussion?
Overlord was never RTS. RPGame with strategy elements is not RTS.
I suppose you're not following orcs must die unchained for a long time.
Its not moba for a loooooooooong time now, just regular OMD.
AoEO was pretty decent game, not sure what you're ranting about here, PvP was both, with and without gear stats so you could play whatever you preffered and PvE parts appealed greatly to casual crowd. It wasn't perfect game, far from it, it was terribly monetized(waaaaaaay too player friendly for F2P game in RTS niche), but it wasn't bad game in itself.
The numbers only prove that gameplay, graphics, innovation or lack of it completely doesn't matter if you're good at marketing and have known name.
People are in denial about blizzard being able to make a crap game and believe everything they push out is gold and diamonds, when reality is, its not - its just another moderate game, but marketing and hype built for it sells it.
Look at Overwatch.
Its NOT the best hero shooter around, its NOT new idea, its very OK game, but that's it. Just OK.
But it was sold to the world as the best thing under the sun and many are convinced of it just because its blizzard.
You do NOT need superior product to sell it as long as you appeal to the right group and market it good.
Best example of it is the whole existence of Apple-they sell stuff that's pretty, but isn't half as functional as what competition offers, but it still sells its stuff for tremendously high cost.
Quality of product is completely irrelevant as long as you invest enough in marketing.
StarSauron
So people will find out its bad and refund ?
But it was not necessary by all the Series.
C&C sold each year another million copies and there was simply no reason to kill it off.
But somehow they came up with the idea
to appeal a non existing E-Sports/Warcraft 3/MOBA audience
made Red Alert 3 that did fail horribly
Instead of learn and admit the problem,
they alienated even harder the fan base by Remove core mechanics like Base Build in C&C4TT.
The RTS Series did die off, if their concept was changed, not because people were bored of their concept.
Draconix
So by your logic, it would better for RTS series, if its core mechanics would only stagnate rather than trying something new?
Its like innovation was a plague of games, even if there is a infinite potential in gaming industries.
steinernein
Keep ignoring the fact that the paradigm for each game is different and so are the levels of polish. That's why DoW 2 got a lot of ++heresy redacted++ in the beginning.
Katitof
Like Metal Gear series going from tight corridors to somewhat open world?
Or Final Fantasy going from turn based combat to active action game combat?
Or like Battlefield series going to modern or futuristic warfare, despite the game being loved for its feel of WW2?
Or Assassins Creed going from game about assassins and their missions to property management with treasure hunting and naval warfare in between to the current open world?
Or The Witcher series going from heavily instanced world to open world, changing how combat plays completely from game to game?
Or Warcraft 3 adding heroes, creeps and RPG elements over Warcraft 2 raw RTS?
Or Super Mario going places so hard that they haven't covered only survival horror(I think) and still 95% of it was a major success?
Legend of Zelda series making MAJOR gameplay changes all the time and still being extremely popular?
Jazz_Sandwich
My point when I mentioned the age of SEGA and the length of time they have been working is that they have been players in a volatile and changing industry for decades. This was to reinforce my point that posting publicly available sales figures on forums isn't educating anybody responsible for actually creating and publishing DoW3, as this was the stated intent of posting them. Or somehow thinking that because they made a game you dislike it was because they couldn't understand basic information anybody with an internet connection can obtain.
Katitof
Your point was literally for franchise to repeat the same thing over and over, because that's what people want.
I have proven to you, using most famous and successful franchises how dead wrong you are and without these huge swings in features or completely changing how the game plays IS the way for games to progress.
TuskaDemonKilla
The SC hate ofrelic fans is still a thing i see.
SC2 sold like mad because it had the best campaign in RTS history and delivered exactly the MP game its fans had been hoping for. And behold, 7 years and 2 expos later it still has 15000+ spikes every day. Get over it.
Regarding DoW3:
Saying it crashed because it changed things is too easy. Innovation has often been really successful in gaming history.
The thing is, they designed a game for...well, for whom exactly?
I think they simply midcalculates the market.
Its a lot of things coming together, really.
Art style. I dont mind it that much, but lots of ppl hated it. And i dont think ANYone would have lamented a "traditional" art style. They shouldve seen this coming. If at least theparticle effects werent so ridicolous... Mistake 1.
Killing Sync kills and lots of other unit animations. Together with point 1, this alienated a lot of the "grimdark, waaaaagh" guys and lots of those who just want a good spectacle from DoW.
Simplifying base building. This alienated looooots of people from alot of different groups.
MOBA elements and moba- marketing.
I dont even count the elites into this , RTS have had heroes for a long time. But only powercore mode, with heroes, this artstyle, tons of activatable abilities fir normal units, and then you go on and talk about MOBA influences?? Jesus christ relic, are you suicidal?
No SP/coop content.Okayish campaign. Not bad, but not enough to really make the solo player happy. No Last Stand.
6.no cover/buildings/retreat etc
So, lets see.
Your game is not for the CoH/DoW 2 types, obviously.
Its not for the Ageof Empire types. Too little basebuilding, too many micro and abilities.
Its not for the hardcore Starcraft player. They play Starcraft. This game is too slow, not explosive enough for their liking.
Its not for the hardcore MOBA player. They play MOBAs.
So who is it for?
Guys who are a little of everything I guess. And Im sure they exist. Im one of them - being kinda tired of the rough competition after years of SC2, but still wanting to play a relatively competitive, relatively classic-RTS.
350000 or so ppl bought this, after all. Not bad in and of itself.
But what did these ppl find (not me, i bought cheap later)?
A 30 bucks game sold for 60 bucks, with almost no maps and a single gamemode, which isnt evena gamemode anyone asked for.
Not quite sure how they ever thought releasing the game in that state was a good idea. Had they released it the way it is now, it wouldnt have tanked so hard.
PS:and let us play annihilation in qm! Srsly relic!
TokyoDream
I think a lot of us are much more into MP than the average RTS customer. It can't overstated just how much the campaign hurt this game. I've seen a lot of reviews after the free weekend that are some variation of "Played campaign for 2 hours. Uninstalled. I heard this game is a MOBA. F%ck MOBAs" It's just another consequence of rushed development. I know Relic can make a better campaign.
steinernein
@TuskaDemonKilla
The actual complaint at the end of the day is that you're spending 60 USD on something that gives you maybe 20 USD worth of content; three factions, a lackluster campaign, bare bones multiplayer.
Everything else was negotiable, they could have churned out an actual clone of SC and reskinned it but they still would have been behind because they don't have basic MP features that even SC1 had. Furthermore, the campaign would still have been ++heresy redacted++ by comparison under any metric.
Katitof
I understand campaign as I wasn't blown away by it either, but the hell you're on about with this?
A LOT of RTS games does 3 factions and NEVER expands beyond that and that's apparently perfectly fine for them, but not for DoW to start with 3?
You can't praise starcraft like a mindless zealot in one line and bash dow in another when talking about faction numbers as that's about as high as hypocrisy can get.
Bare bones multiplayer?
Standard matchmaking - check.
Custom games with different objectives - check.(starcraft doesn't offer that)
What more you expect?
If you throw bland statements like that, better be prepared to elaborate.
TuskaDemonKilla
I dont even think the 3 factions are the biggest deal. SC has been running on 3 factions for 20 years. Theres just not so much you could do with them. Ppl wanted epic mass attrittion wars, got power core instead.
And if i heard correctly, balance was horrendous the first few weeks, basically spam ASMs or gtfo. Such drives ppl off
What i really meant to say: This game didnt suffer as much from its core concept as from its execution.
Katitof
If you're not able to defend 10k HP power core, you wouldn't be able to defend few 1k HP buildings, all that power core mode does is prevent SC2-like rush strats to have opponent build his base in center of your and press you there for early easy win.
And it still was incomparably better then DoW1 and 2 balance at release.
That's kind of a bland statement.
If you mean balance, then no RTS ever is balanced at release and single release day will provide more play hours then close testing would ever do by people who will quickly find best synergies and so on.
SC2 was equally terribly balanced at its release.
steinernein
The world editor for SC1, as far as I know - and correct me if I am wrong - is way more robust than that of DoW3's (or any DoW really).
The three factions in Starcraft also got their own campaign, and quantity some times is its own quality.
Which brings me to DoW factions; they generally tend to be less dense and reusable than say Starcraft's factions or even the two factions of say Total Annihilation. Because of the way the game is designed, the toys you're given are almost never fully used; for example, you can't mass imperial knights, you can't mass terminators, but in games like SC you had a lot more flexibility -- the combinations were far greater. So, what DoW made up for that was in factions even if it was just mostly a reskin. You can chalk a lot of that to balance and that's fine, but at some point you have to wonder why even have something like the doctrine system.
As for bare bones multiplayer, that's a hyperbole on my part, oops; there still isn't an observer mode, there aren't free for alls either.
TuskaDemonKilla
Yes, power core mode prevents rushes to an extent. But it also drags games out endlessly.
And you forgot another thing i said: maps. There were not enough(still arent) and some suck, literally funneling you into lanes.
And no, SC2 was not terribly balanced at release.
It also had 1v1 up to 4v4, arcade, scenarios, and the campaign of course.
Lude
I actually agree with those that claim the SP is biggest failure of this game, by a long shot, and the rest of the game has suffered as a result. There are clearly some players who think the MP in this game is great, including myself, and it pushes buttons for me insofar as it is an RTS with the high stakes and breakneck pace of an FPS or other kind of game with strategy still being important. But I'm pretty sure there is only one person who plays this game and enjoys it offline, and that is Draconix on this forum, who plays the MP vs an AI! And I think that most of the bad reputation of the game is from players who did not want just a competetive RTS experience but a full game, and the SP in this game is so poor that with 1.3k hours of game time I have STILL not completed the campaign, because it is utter trash, the bits I played I played only for the cutscenes in between missions and to unlock Codex Macha skin. People bring up Power Core mode, balance, etc. but I think most people who are put off the game by these things are mostly people who have not played the game enough to understand how they work, and the reason people do not give the game the chance it deserves is because of the trash single player, which honestly, should not even have been in the game in my opinion, it should have been marketed as an MP only game with single player tutorial (which is effectively what the SP is).
RTS gamers in general expect the game to have an interest single player, unfortunately it seems like, as it stands now, the design of the game simply does not seem to be compatible with interesting single player, I think in part because of the uselessness of the AI.
TokyoDream
That's why there's hope. If they have a great expansion and make a lot of noise about it, Relic can turn things around. I'm talking 2 races, great campaign, last stand and at least as many MP features as DOW1. At it's core DOW3 is a lot of fun, there just isn't anything to recommend other than the most basic MP game mode.
StarSauron
---------DoW2 innovation ? Melee we had in DoW1 and this cover system in CoH.
DoW1 and Company of Heroes worked, because it was from start on an own entity.
Well DoW2 was something for Company of Heroes fans, like Total War Warhammer is for Total War Fans.
Relic had some kind of Experience already with the combat mechanic they did put into DoW2.
It was based on the game they did make and had experience Company of Heroes.
It was kind of logical, "we fear Starcraft 2, so for now we play save,
here the combat gameplay you liked from Company of Heroes and it was properly advertised that way,
a completely new experience you newer had before, but actually just a reskin of Company of Heroes.
----------DoW3
so how many MOBAs/E-Sport/Warcraft 3 did make Relic ? Zero!
as Blizzard did make Starcraft2, it was already their third E-Sport RTS game.
Here is simply the problem by DoW3, it does lack massively on substance behind it.
It doesn't matter of it's a old school core mechanic or new innovation. The Result must make sense.
In the particular case (incompetently copy pasted from other games) and
(remove good and reliable features) is not make something new or Innovative.