I guess we can hope for an announcement on Monday, with a 4 week lead. Otherwise April is dead to me.
The next 3 days will decide when we have the game. [Solved: False] Ok, The next 37 days now...
- Thread starter Zythen1975
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I recall that being a thing back in the early days of EVE as well, back in like 2003-2004. Not sure where it all came from. My guess is that it dates back to Everquest or Ultima Online.
Be those things as they may, I was bored to tears, to be frank, with the latest stream. No faux pas, that was great, but pretty tedious to watch. I don't think that's how to get new people to buy in. Well maybe tabletop people.
You are not alone. The mission began at 8:41. The first shot was not fired until 30:58. Even that was a miss. This video may have been good for data miners. If they were targeting new comers then I'm afraid they may have only front loaded them with under-the-hood info at the expense of not showcasing the game's excitement value. Here's hoping the in game tutorials are not so slow paced.
I hope your right. They i just don't see them telling us unless it's 4 weeks out. Were approaching a may release fast
Just says April when I look at it. Both the store page and 'upcoming'
I mean, it's a stream not for any new random player, but for new players likely to be watching the Paradox channel. By Paradox standards (and I say this as somebody who, you know, owns and enjoys a decent number of their games) a shot within the first half-hour is a rip-roaring thrill ride.
The Combat and Mercenary Life trailers are much more aimed at general audiences and the reaction to them from randos seems to be really positive.
Here's the thing with the tactics tutorial stream, it wasn't targeted at backers or Battletech veterans, but it also wasn't really targeted at brand new players. If someone has never heard of Battletech before, this stream wasn't the place to start. They are likely to go for the little 5 minute teaser videos. This was for the people who are a bit interested, but want to know how it actually works. It is for the people that have seen a bit of the hype, watched the trailers, but want some details beyond those.
They did something very similar with Surviving Mars just recently. They did a four or five part tutorial series, each one was about half an hour and went over the most basic concepts of the game. Things like, how to place a single structure and what types of resources are in the game. The Battletech equivalent would be things like what affects does terrain have, what are hit locations and how does facing affect them... the exact type of things they went over in this stream. I don't usually go for city builders. Sim City was boring, Dwarf Fortress is fun, but I never stick with it long enough to get far. The tutorials and other hype that Paradox ran had me juuust about ready to hand over my money on a pre-order. If I didn't have Battletech coming up and a stack of other big games in my backlog, I probably would have. It is still on my list of games to consider getting when it goes on sale.
I was curious about Surviving Mars because of the hype around the forums. I watch the tutorials because of the hype. Because of the tutorials I almost bought the game (and still spent several hours actually watching a Let's Play of it).
I think Paradox might actually know something about how to do this marketing thing.
They did something very similar with Surviving Mars just recently. They did a four or five part tutorial series, each one was about half an hour and went over the most basic concepts of the game. Things like, how to place a single structure and what types of resources are in the game. The Battletech equivalent would be things like what affects does terrain have, what are hit locations and how does facing affect them... the exact type of things they went over in this stream. I don't usually go for city builders. Sim City was boring, Dwarf Fortress is fun, but I never stick with it long enough to get far. The tutorials and other hype that Paradox ran had me juuust about ready to hand over my money on a pre-order. If I didn't have Battletech coming up and a stack of other big games in my backlog, I probably would have. It is still on my list of games to consider getting when it goes on sale.
I was curious about Surviving Mars because of the hype around the forums. I watch the tutorials because of the hype. Because of the tutorials I almost bought the game (and still spent several hours actually watching a Let's Play of it).
I think Paradox might actually know something about how to do this marketing thing.
I'm curious: do you own any of Paradox's titles and do you enjoy them?
Paradox mostly markets to it's own core of 1m or so dedicated player base. Apart from two games (Pillars and Cities), all their games sell and appeal to the same people. Outside of EU/HOI/Stellaris, Pillars 2 is doing terribly compared to the the original, Surviving Mars is doing terrible compared to Cities and no body talks about Steel Division 44.
At this point, Paradox is less about expanding its player base than it is informing its fans what new DLC is on the horizon. It's a legit business model but not necessarily what suits HBS since BT is again, something different to Paradox's core games and those 1m Paradox fans can't be relied on to open wallets as readily as they would another EU/HOI/Stellaris DLC.
As you said, tutorials are great at drumming up interest...but where are the high quality promos that makes people want to check out the tutorials in the first place? Nobody outside of Paradox ecosystem will actively search for their internal marketing platforms like their streaming schedules and if it wasn't for HBS, I wouldn't even know Paradox is suppose to be pushing BT.
<As is probably obvious, I'm one of those million plus Paradox fans. Most of my friends are too to one degree or another. Battletech is definitely *not* a normal Paradox game. neither is anything SQW listed. I'm hoping Paradox is paying attention to their non-core properties and trying to learn some lessons, because I really want BattleTech to buck that trend.
The aforementioned Combat tutorial video felt a lot like someone who really knows Paradox games trying to explain how to play a paradox game to someone who has never seen one before. They dumb it down, and show all the important bits, but sometimes go off on a tangent. (paradox games are not easy to learn, but once you do, the next one is kinda like riding a bike) The problem is the combat in Battletech isn't exactly that complex. Yes, there are a lot of things going on... but its not like you're balancing six to eight different factors while trying to run a country and make sure your allies like you enough to join your wars...
its also turn based. Paradox games are all real time. You can pause them if you want, but everything happens live. So stopping game play to explain things makes more sense. In a turn based game, just play some, while explaining. Nothing is going to happen so fast that people can't catch on.
Personal thoughts anyway.
The aforementioned Combat tutorial video felt a lot like someone who really knows Paradox games trying to explain how to play a paradox game to someone who has never seen one before. They dumb it down, and show all the important bits, but sometimes go off on a tangent. (paradox games are not easy to learn, but once you do, the next one is kinda like riding a bike) The problem is the combat in Battletech isn't exactly that complex. Yes, there are a lot of things going on... but its not like you're balancing six to eight different factors while trying to run a country and make sure your allies like you enough to join your wars...
its also turn based. Paradox games are all real time. You can pause them if you want, but everything happens live. So stopping game play to explain things makes more sense. In a turn based game, just play some, while explaining. Nothing is going to happen so fast that people can't catch on.
Personal thoughts anyway.
Excellent observations good Sir. :bow:
Yes, I enjoy my turn-based BATTLETECH...
...but I would absolutely REJOICE in a real-time game that breathes Life into both the Military Expansion in the years prior to BattleTech's First Succession War and then of course the First Succession War itself!
Playing as the leader of House Kurita would be a fond desire of mine, charting the course of Military, Naval and Industrial research, investment and build up... OHHHH YEAH! : )
And I don't think I am alone in my desire for such a HBS/Paradox-style cross-over game. Who knows... maybe someday...
? Pillars 2 is not out yet and it is not being published by Paradox as far as I know/
edit : release set for May 8 published by Obsidian
Well, Cities:Skylines is also something different than the run-of-the-mill Paradox Grand Strategy Game. Or at least it is more far away from that than Steel Division, which might cater to those who play HoI4. But for some reason C:S is doing way better (according to Steam Charts more people played it this winter than one year ago) than SD (which is basically dead).
I`d like to think that each game is valued by the gaming community on the base of it`s quality and what it has to "offer" to the individual player. C:S is a worthy remake of Sim City 4 and as it seems enough people are interested in this kind of city building game. Besides it being a good game, it probably did also benefit from the rather rough performance of the 2013 iteration of the Sim City franchise.
SD has more or less died. Despite the fact, that the theme is catering to Paradox community. Why that is so, I can`t say. I have not played the game and was not even slightly interested in it due to ridden-to-death WW2 and click-intensive RTS. And maybe there is simply not a large enough market for things like this, when I can simply play WoT when I want some instant WW2 action.
I am interested in how well Surviving Mars will do. It is an interesting premise, but I wonder about the endgame content and how fast one gets to said endgame. In C:S one can erase / build new city parts at will. In Surviving Mars that might be more difficult due to residential areas being linked to the dome structures. Additionally the market might not be large enough, since it has to compete with other small-scale building games and "this time we do it on Mars" might not be enough of a unique selling point. Well, let`s see.
As far as BT is concerned, I am cautiously optimistic. Compared to Surviving Mars, BT has already way more clicks on this board. The turn-based "action" part of the game might cater to enough people, although there is tough competition from the XCOM franchise. I think where BT stands out is the management part of running a company beyond the campaign in a endless game, individualizing one`s Mechs and the Skirmish option, since these things are either thin or non-existent in XCOM. In what way the underlying story / lore / franchise might garner long-term interest in some people is another thing I am curious to see.
Last edited:
I don't really see xcom as competition. When I like a style of game, I buy as many as I can find. If there are lots of that style, then competition exists for sure. But when there are very few of that style, then they support each other. Besides the diehard franchise fans who didn't notice the kickstarter, I see xcom fans as our biggest source of new customers.
I must be the jackpot then - I grew up with Mechwarrior and XCOM and once I read about BT it was an easy decision.
With "Phoenix Point" and "Mechwarrior 5 Mercenaries" this will be a wonderful year for me. I need more vacation days
There's enough anecdotal evidence that if your game is good, you can still make a mint even with a turn-based game, without having to pander to the console market (looking at you Iron Harvest).
If BT can come out with the level of quality and polish XCOM had, HBS will strike gold. The only hurdle is whether the AI and the sandbox campaign (something none of us has seen yet) is up to the challenge.
If BT can come out with the level of quality and polish XCOM had, HBS will strike gold. The only hurdle is whether the AI and the sandbox campaign (something none of us has seen yet) is up to the challenge.
.png){kind=avatar}
If there is even the slightest marketing at that target group, they will buy the game.
Turn-based gamers, for some odd reason, seem to have a larger camaraderie than other game styles.
E.g. there was once the C&C vs Warcraft feud in RTS or the FIFA vs PRO in sports. Many people are diehards of one OR the other, but I never heard of a feud between Age of Wonders II and Disciples II. Most people that liked turn based strategy, simply had to have both.
The games are listed in date order of release and Battletech is currently sat between games released on the 24th and the 25th April.
Whether something is a competitor or not depends on the release date. If XCom had another game coming out in April, don't you think there would be a massive conflict, especially for people who have limited money? Thankfully, that's not the case. Which makes me a little less worried that God of War is coming out then, since it's not the same genre at all.
