Originally Posted by ringring
To me it just looks like they're flailing around, trying anything in the hope that it works. There are parts of the game that is pretty solid but without that something extra it's like a bacon sandwich without the bacon.
I don't know what the point was that it when wrong. Was it the original concept? Was it the choice of FTP rather than subscription? Was is the concept of the game as a 'service' rather than a 'product'? Did Matt and the rest actually know what they were doing? Or was it simply that it was too expensive to create something with the magic of the original combined with the technical excellence* of it's successor.
* yes excellence, apart from just after every update.
|
For the record, I think the free to play model was never the problem.
In fact, I could say that about most of the stuff you mentioned.
Poor leadership (or misguided leadership, depending on your views) is what I would point to. They just seemed to jump around with ideas and goals and strategies: there never seemed to be real engagement.
And I'd like to give my sympathies to OP. I'm much the same as you: I avoided this site like the plague because of the caustic tone but now, regardless of my opinion on said tone, the facts people are using are indisputable.