Previous Cricket games, no matter what the license, have shown very similar patterns in terms of where the game sells...
The editor in 2013 is a big improvement offering more customisation options (you can play around with various bits you couldn't before: no longer are you just picking from a few generic heads!) AND THERE'S SOME SLIDERS INVOLVED.
I know you guys love a slider or two...
I know you guys love a slider or two...
Woooow somebody's on the defensive!
I'm a windies fan mate, I don't care who wins the ashes as long as its entertaining. Just couldn't resist but make an Aussie fan bite. And bite you did!
I wasn't defensive, just stating the facts :P Aussie did well at home this summer and pushed South Africa close. Hussey was a huge loss though.
Woooow somebody's on the defensive!
I'm a windies fan mate, I don't care who wins the ashes as long as its entertaining. Just couldn't resist but make an Aussie fan bite. And bite you did!
Previous Cricket games, no matter what the license, have shown very similar patterns in terms of where the game sells...
The editor in 2013 is a big improvement offering more customisation options (you can play around with various bits you couldn't before: no longer are you just picking from a few generic heads!) AND THERE'S SOME SLIDERS INVOLVED.
I know you guys love a slider or two...
I take this point, but there's a counter argument that says that giving players TOO much ability to update the game themselves might mean that they don't buy future versions from you. Commercially it's a big risk: one might speculate (and clearly I *am* speculating) that some of the previous efforts of building Cricket franchises might have been derailed because people were happy to just keep editing an old version (which of course the publishers see absolutely no return on their investment for)... (Point of interest: there's 5 times the amount of people looking at a mod thread about a 6 or 7 year old game as I type this than there is looking at the Ashes 2013 thread).
The counter argument is clearly "well, if they ignored a new version of a game and were happy to edit the old one, then clearly you didn't make enough improvements in other areas", but that all costs money and with the market for Cricket games being a fraction of some of the other big sports I could see why they wouldn't want to take the risk: when considering a long-term commitment to making cricket games it would have to be a consideration if you worried your core fanbase might just buy the first one and not any subsequent ones.
Again, this is all just my individual opinion: I'm just saying I can see both sides and it's not that simple an issue. I'm the devil's avocado.
Give a man a fish, and he can eat for a day. TEACH a man to fish, and he might never buy another fish off you.
I take this point, but there's a counter argument that says that giving players TOO much ability to update the game themselves might mean that they don't buy future versions from you. Commercially it's a big risk: one might speculate (and clearly I *am* speculating) that some of the previous efforts of building Cricket franchises might have been derailed because people were happy to just keep editing an old version (which of course the publishers see absolutely no return on their investment for)... (Point of interest: there's 5 times the amount of people looking at a mod thread about a 6 or 7 year old game as I type this than there is looking at the Ashes 2013 thread).
The counter argument is clearly "well, if they ignored a new version of a game and were happy to edit the old one, then clearly you didn't make enough improvements in other areas", but that all costs money and with the market for Cricket games being a fraction of some of the other big sports I could see why they wouldn't want to take the risk: when considering a long-term commitment to making cricket games it would have to be a consideration if you worried your core fanbase might just buy the first one and not any subsequent ones.
Again, this is all just my individual opinion: I'm just saying I can see both sides and it's not that simple an issue. I'm the devil's avocado.
Give a man a fish, and he can eat for a day. TEACH a man to fish, and he might never buy another fish off you.
I take this point, but there's a counter argument that says that giving players TOO much ability to update the game themselves might mean that they don't buy future versions from you. Commercially it's a big risk: one might speculate (and clearly I *am* speculating) that some of the previous efforts of building Cricket franchises might have been derailed because people were happy to just keep editing an old version (which of course the publishers see absolutely no return on their investment for)... (Point of interest: there's 5 times the amount of people looking at a mod thread about a 6 or 7 year old game as I type this than there is looking at the Ashes 2013 thread).
The counter argument is clearly "well, if they ignored a new version of a game and were happy to edit the old one, then clearly you didn't make enough improvements in other areas", but that all costs money and with the market for Cricket games being a fraction of some of the other big sports I could see why they wouldn't want to take the risk: when considering a long-term commitment to making cricket games it would have to be a consideration if you worried your core fanbase might just buy the first one and not any subsequent ones.
Again, this is all just my individual opinion: I'm just saying I can see both sides and it's not that simple an issue. I'm the devil's avocado.
Give a man a fish, and he can eat for a day. TEACH a man to fish, and he might never buy another fish off you.
