Thread: Online Leagues?
View Single Post
Old 09-17-2018, 06:44 PM   #65
Sharkn20
Minors (Triple A)
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 287
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben E Lou View Post
I don't have to toe any lines. Markus and I have 15+ years of trust and understanding built up. I've spoken out dozens of times in the past when there have been OOTP decisions with which I've disagreed, yet he asked me to moderate this board. There's no conflict between my role as mod and my role as someone pushing the development team to make FOF the best it can be.


That said, a few thoughts...


1. My number one reaction is.... {yawn}. I say that because I can't help but think this is not much more than "under promise/over deliver." Even with Andreas's comments today, I'll be quite surprised if there's not MP in FOF 9.0. I'm not alarmed by this post.

2. I've long stated that the only reason I play MP is that the SP AI isn't strong enough to keep me interested. If Jim continues to improve the SP AI and/or continues to add tools to support house rules to the point where it's challenging enough as a SP-only game for me, I'd drop to one MP league, possibly zero. I'd much rather play at my own pace in my own way, but the AI makes doing so too easy, so MP is a "necessity" for that reason.

3. I thought it was an ill-timed post from Andreas. If I'd been asked, I'd have suggested not bringing up that possibility until the feature set gets released, and then if there's no MP, say it then with an explanation of why, secure in the knowledge that a fair bit of the hubbub about no MP would have been drowned out in the discussion of the excitement over the SP game. (The OOTP forum denizens on the whole have long been far more SP-centric than those of FOF.) As things stand now, there's either going to be an extended period of needless grumbling (if there ends up being MP in the release,) or some people who *might* have been willing to try a SP-only version had it been sprung on them as a surprise will have had weeks to stir each other's anger and dig in their heels in refusal to give whatever is announced a chance. In short, I suspect that MP will now become a "cause" for some folks, if it hasn't already. (I mean, this is fairly obvious, given the number of folks posting complaints in this thread as either their first or close to their first posts ever at OOTP. It's a concerted "organized" effort--a cause.) However, even though I think the post was a mistake...

4. ...ultimately, the long-term impact of it will be minimal, even if they surprise me and the release doesn't have MP. The MP crowd is completely replaceable if they make a solid SP game, which I suspect they will do. As I stated earlier in this thread, folks like me who are either fully or nearly MP-only comprise a tiny fraction of the customer base. A properly done SP-only FOF with an OOTP interface should move more than 5K units, quite possibly 10K or more. A few dozen people upset that they don't get their #1 feature isn't going to put a dent in that. And even from a "forum buzz" perspective, as I mentioned earlier, these forums tend to have a ton more SP than MP discussion. We're replaceable. If they release a great SP game, they could wait several years to add MP, have every single current MP-only person refuse to buy another version in frustration, yet still easily surpass the number of people playing MP at its height. Adding the OOTP interface opens up a whole new world of potential customers who simply wouldn't touch FOF because of how it looked. I get that some MP-only people are getting emotional because they feel slighted, but as a business decision, I can't rationally argue with placing other features before MP.

5. They'd sell *more* games initially if they could put MP in this release. No question about that. The main thing they have to consider, as Andreas correctly referenced, is this:I work in the software industry. It's a constant tug-of-war to balance "solid product where all items work well" with "more features to increase the size of the tent." As resources are not unlimited, you must sacrifice some of the former to achieve more of the latter, and vice versa. Finding the correct balance in that tension isn't easy. Release a product with every feature known to man but the features don't work well together, are buggy, etc., and you'll get high initial sales, but bad reviews, and it won't do as well long-term. Release a product with too few features, and you restrict your potential audience too much for maximum sales. Find the right balance, and you're golden.



Terrific point of view. Thanks as usual Ben for taking your time.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
Sharkn20 is offline