retired_crazybonejr

Why are you in either of those forums?

retired_sargent

That was my first thought until I spotted the ironing going on.

KingsbayYHPE

So much irony I think I'll send him my smalls

retired_mujerenforma

Not a pleasant thought.

retired_rymar

you get your smalls ironed???

KingsbayYHPE

If you stay with my wife you do

retired_yolanda

No. 15

retired_sara maria

That'll explain your tactical knowledge.

retired_yolanda

I have NFI what you're on about. My tactical skills are great! It's just my team that is crap.

retired_B_RAN

Since the inception of CM, SI has steadily grown. It has added staff, it has broken its own sales records, and it continues to enjoy financial success reported publically in all media that cover the gaming industry. I have not seen any layoffs, cutbacks on advertising, or any other signs of decline, and none of these media outlets have reported this either. So that's how I'm in a position to say that there is "no doubt" that SI has enough money to keep improving the game.

If you truly believe that there are future improvements that warrant a massive injection of cash, you're not going to get it from these sorts of patches. You do it through investment capital. You go public, or you get a company like Sega to provide the funds by pitching a proposal that is thorough, well-researched, and compelling. That's how you do business.


The argument is that it's a deviation from the mission and intention of the game, and it has the potential to steer the game in new directions that will alienate its fan base. As soon as you start making it a priority to change your product to try and capture new markets, by definition you are expending resources and energy that could be used to provide improvements for your existing fan base.

For example, I say that there should have been a patch to make the CFA playable. How does that involve more resources and time than what was involved to produce the Harchester patch? But the former serves the existing fan base, while the latter is a ploy to somehow sell games to a particular demographic. Well, I would argue that this demographic is not a legitiamte target.

First, have a look at the market research and the industry trends. There is a reason why you don't see video game adverts during news broadcasts, reality television and many other programmes, at least here in the United States. People watching those shows are not good targets for game sales. So, instead, video games are advertised during children's programs, sporting events, animated series, and the like.

Now, maybe it's a bit different in Britain with the Harchester show. But it's hard to imagine SI capturing a larger portion of the British market, and the Harchester patch certainly isn't going to appeal to any of the other countries where you can't even see the programme. It's a complete waste, it sets a bad precedent, and it could be a slippery slope toward more gimmicks. So my recommendation is to focus 100% of SI's efforts on serving the existing fan base, and if the company wants to completely overhaul the product and add amazing new features that will motivate a global market, then it should raise the capital to do so properly.