I apologize that I misquoted you with the "never come back" portion, which I think did make your previous statement look more extreme than you actually stated it. Still, my previous post was a straightforward and on-topic reply to at least this portion of your previous post:
Those are just the steam numbers but when the game was released, 23k people were playing this game, a month later, it was down 11k and now halfway into June, it's down to 6.5k. Also, while I still believe it's possible to have a good SP and MP experience in a single product, that 6.5k players isn't a good sign for the longevity argument of the SP so far at least.
My previous reply would also address this:
As for the second part of the quote, it was meant for the game over all, which by all means, also includes MP. Like I said above, to survive, a MP games needs players. Right now, since the MP cannot be counted on to keep those players engaged, that role falls onto the SP part of the game and as of the last 24h on steam, the 4.5K peak players is not a good sign for that longevity.
(Important: I know you had other text rolling that back, which is acknowledged, so I don't want to overstate that as your more nuanced singular position).
So, while I did misquote you and I'm sorry about that, I don't think my position really needs to shift too much.
My stance on whether or not the MP would be a balm for the player numbers and/or a missed opportunity of potential players? Again, still unsure. MP player counts really snowball towards big success or big failure rather quickly and it's something of a winner-take-all proposition to where the top percentage do very well while large numbers of others don't. Which side of the bell curve is Battletech on? It's hard to say, but generally, each successful MP title is in a cluster with clear peers that offer something similar whereas Battletech is more of an odd duck. The opportunity cost is unclear and hard to substantiate beyond suspicions.
Now, I will digress into what I think is actually going to drive decisions and likely outcomes - if HBS want a strong and persistent playerbase built on singleplayer, they should invest in the sandbox layers more than campaigns and focus on emergent stories based on player choices rather than scripted story. However, while I would prefer that, HBS will go with what they and Paradox read as being more popular and/or likely to succeed based on HBS' specific skills, which could potentially be going in the opposite direction. That is to say, having low long-term playerbase numbers due to the time-consuming creation of stories which offer limited replay value could potentially end up being more popular and profitable than pushing further into strategy game mechanics (or MP, for that matter).
Likewise, they announced working on a new game - which is a big deal and means the studio resources will be split to an extent. Most likely, the new game that they announced working on is a cRPG with Paradox saying (paraphrased) "we wanted HBS because they're good with creating and nurturing IP, which is something that we're not good at." HBS just nailing competitive PVP and becoming the cream that rises to the top is probably a matter of bringing on at least 5 assorted full-time specialists. While I'm sure they'll bring people on, HBS' maiden voyage within Paradox will almost surely be doing more of what they've historically been good at rather than doubling down within a hit and miss field which they have almost no experience in. TLDR: the Vegas odds of HBS 'nurturing an IP' are high.
*cough* totally unsubstantiated rumor: they've already started a White Wolf Publishing cRPG *cough*
I'm not saying this is what I would consider absolutely ideal, but the smoke signals are there to be read when taking in all the factors (which include assorted interviews, the acquisition, official Q&A vids, player count/achievement numbers, forum trends and then historical development strengths/models).
