| Xxain said: Simple. It's a abridged version to what I explained above. Here is a personal abridged example. I like PlayStation. I could care less about SONY's first party IP"s, but I understand the importance of them in growing the PlayStation brand. They bring in more consumers. More consumers mean a increase in brand/install base. That leads to more developers who who commit to PlayStation development. That leads to more games that I will like. I get more games that I like buy rooting for games that I don't like. That is what I mean by not being in a self contained box. Bolded: Correct, but we have to get to those first installments first. At this point Octo is looking to be an success and from this point on, future installments will decide how it develops as a brand. To get to the first Octo SE needed to have the confidence to do it. That confidence comes from knowing that their bread and butter brands will continue to bring in the money to develop and cover for experiments that may not pay off. |
I understand what you're saying now, but I can't agree with it. When a company does something I don't like, I'll speak up. Discussing what I do and don't like is healthy criticism for the company so they know what sort of games I am likely to support.
I'm a Nintendo guy, mostly, and I do like it when some games sell well even if I'm not personally a fan. I don't play Animal Crossing, but I understand that it's a series that has many fans and its an important part of Nintendo's portfolio. But if a game in a genre I like contains elements I don't like, for example the new Paper Mario games, I will not publicly cheer for it. I criticize the elements I dislike in the hopes that Nintendo will do better.
killeryoshis and others are expressing their preference within the genre and shouldn't be expected to cheer for games that contain elements they do not like.
