Quote:
Originally Posted by mookiemookie
But I still say that the Silent Hunter brand was damaged, probably irreparably, by SH5. In an attempt to broaden the audience for the game, some half baked RPG elements were mashed together with sim elements that were rushed and incomplete. The end result is a product that makes no one happy, and consequently sales tanked. If Ubi had allowed/told the devs to stick to the blueprint that SH3 laid out, and update and improve where necessary they may not have increased the audience appreciably, but they would have given the existing fanbase what they wanted and redeemed themselves in the eyes of the customers who made the SH franchise what it is. While that would be great for us as sub sim fans, I think it would have also delivered decent enough sales, which helps the bottom line. I'm a firm believer in the idea that doing right by customers is the best way to profitability.
|
That is debatable. The potential market for hardcore simulations as always been very small and even when quality naval sims come out, the customers are not there:
"Dangerous Waters" had all the elements players say they are looking for in a subsim: many platforms, realistic sensor and weapon performance, 500 page
manual. Sales were poor and Sonalyst has abandonned the market;
"Silent Hunter 4" was an improvement over SH3 in many areas, but because of a few minor bugs at release it was savaged by the community and sold relatively poorly.
In addition, wargamers are notoriously difficult to please. They are ten times more demanding and critical than other gamers.
So if you are an executive at a major publisher, why would you waste your time on sub/naval sims when simmers themselves may not even buy what you offer them? For much less aggravation, you can produce "Assassin's Creed X" and be garanteed $100 milion in sales. Its a no brainer.