HoloDust said:
Well, from my POV, I'm grateful that there's always been and there will always be devs that make games that they feel like making (cause that's what they like to play) and not what market trends dictate - otherwise we'd never get something like Souls, the whole CRPG renaissance and plethora of other games (and genres). P.S. On the side-note, success of BG3 really had nothing to do with having multiplayer. |
I'm also glad that there are people passionat enough to make the games they want to play, whatever the genre or style, but that doesn't get in the way of seeing things like they are. If you are a single developer, making the kind of games you want is great, but when you're the head of a studio and several people depend on the success or failure of the game you're making, trying to cover as many bases as possible is a sensible move. That's all I'm saying. And having some sort of multiplayer aspect usually, but not always, helps to make a game more successful.
Also, I'll have to disagree with you. I'm a firm believer that the co-op part of BG3 helped it sell more copies to gamers that had little to no experience in this genre but could rely on friends that did have that experience and helped them play (and hopefully enjoy) the game.
Please excuse my bad English.
Currently gaming on a PC with an i5-4670k@stock (for now), 16Gb RAM 1600 MHz and a GTX 1070
Steam / Live / NNID : jonxiquet Add me if you want, but I'm a single player gamer.