Beamer wrote on Sep 14, 2011, 10:03:
Look back at the posts I've taken issue with - they're all arrogant and insulting as well. You just agree with their outrage so you don't see them as such.
Verno wrote on Sep 14, 2011, 09:09:Beamer wrote on Sep 13, 2011, 16:09:
Most here are very upfront about having never worked in the industry, having never had a management role, and having never done any kind of business planning.
All you need to do is see all the complaining about marketing and advertising to tell, anyway. People will refer to a TV ad campaign as marketing.
This kind of arrogant diatribe is why no one takes you seriously anymore. I'm with Prez, your posts have been getting more insulting, offtopic and bizarre for awhile now. Making every topic about your personal experiences and how much better they are than everyone else is not only inappropriate but it's obnoxious.
tRens wrote on Sep 14, 2011, 09:05:Prez wrote on Sep 13, 2011, 17:39:People will refer to a TV ad campaign as marketing.
I think you are coming unhinged. First off, a TV ad campaign is marketing. Secondly, why do insist on harping on semantics? You made your point - advertising is marketing but marketing isn't only advertising. The fact that you continue to beat it into the ground seems to indicate you'd prefer to use this as an illustration of your superior wisdom, which I'm thinking no one is convinced of, much less impressed by.
Ding Ding Ding Ding
Beamer wrote on Sep 13, 2011, 16:09:
Most here are very upfront about having never worked in the industry, having never had a management role, and having never done any kind of business planning.
All you need to do is see all the complaining about marketing and advertising to tell, anyway. People will refer to a TV ad campaign as marketing.
Prez wrote on Sep 13, 2011, 17:39:People will refer to a TV ad campaign as marketing.
I think you are coming unhinged. First off, a TV ad campaign is marketing. Secondly, why do insist on harping on semantics? You made your point - advertising is marketing but marketing isn't only advertising. The fact that you continue to beat it into the ground seems to indicate you'd prefer to use this as an illustration of your superior wisdom, which I'm thinking no one is convinced of, much less impressed by.
Bhruic wrote on Sep 12, 2011, 23:57:Oooo, 500k sales!
Oooo, 1M sales!
Considering that's more than some of their games sell for, I don't think your attempt at mocking is that impressive. 1M in sales for a non-FPS game would be quite respectable, and would certainly pay for a medium-sized dev house. Would it be Starbreeze? Probably not, as others have mentioned, they seem to focus on FPSes.
As for who should do it, well, the ones that own the IP have decided they want to make a game for that setting. If they've already decided that much, it's not a much bigger stretch to want them to do it properly. We've already seen they aren't, so any further speculation along that path is moot.
briktal wrote on Sep 12, 2011, 23:04:Annex wrote on Sep 12, 2011, 22:47:Beamer wrote on Sep 12, 2011, 22:02:
That would sell about 200k copies.
Let some indie do that. It doesn't need to be Syndicate - let them create a new world with new twists in plot, setting and gameplay.
Fine so why not call this FPS game something other than Syndicate and have them hire a studio that actually wants to make a true sequel?
Because they aren't jaded gamers wishing everything was like it was back when they were younger and gaming wasn't so mainstream. Maybe they, like lots of people probably have, thought "oh man wouldn't a Syndicate FPS be cool?"
Alpha Geist wrote on Sep 13, 2011, 16:02:
Rather have the new Syndicate sell well (being a decent game or not) and possibly spawn more FPS sequels, and have the IP live on (with a bleak possibility of another official Syndicate title in the vein of the classics)?
Or have the new Syndicate sell poorly (decent game or not) with neigh a possibility of any Syndicate sequels, be it FPS or another perspective? Since I'd imagine poor sales would equate to never seeing anything "Syndicate" ever again.
panbient wrote on Sep 13, 2011, 18:11:
Love or hate the idea but there's no way at all that the PR departments at Starbreeze and EA aren't wetting their pants in glee at the buzz this announcement has created. Positive or negative is irrelevant, fact is people are talking about it - A LOT.
Beamer wrote on Sep 13, 2011, 16:09:
Most here are very upfront about having never worked in the industry, having never had a management role, and having never done any kind of business planning.
See, this is why people think you're an idiot. Point me to anyone saying that they want a shitty Syndicate ripoff. There wasn't any. That was just you making the moronic assumption that any true sequel to Syndicate would have to be shitty.
Furthermore, you've presented an entirely false dichotomy. It's not a case of we can have a FPS or we can have a Syndicate sequel.
Is it possible that they'll make a decent Syndicate-setting FPS? Sure. But there's not enough of a "Syndicate-setting" to have any significant impact on that. There is absolutely no reason to place a FPS in the Syndicate world. The only advantage they gain from it is potentially getting sales from people based on the name. And that's why people are upset.
People will refer to a TV ad campaign as marketing.
All you need to do is see all the complaining about marketing and advertising to tell, anyway. People will refer to a TV ad campaign as marketing.
wonkawonka wrote on Sep 13, 2011, 10:14:Beamer wrote on Sep 13, 2011, 09:16:
You pathetically have no idea what a "suit" is, or what "marketing" is (as you idiots confuse it with advertising, which is an aspect of marketing but a fraction of it) and you constantly whine about advertising budgets without understanding how goddamn directly related it is to sales, moreso than quality and therefore advertising spend comes from a different pool of money than developer budget.
Speak for yourself, don't generalize. Some of those you label "you idiots" might be slightly better knowledgeable in this field than you....
Wowbagger_TIP wrote on Sep 13, 2011, 11:48:
The one recent attempt was so ridiculously lousy that I think whoever is in charge of that IP now must have no imagination whatsoever.