Auto-translated
I'm not sure how to properly embed videos here. I extracted it from VK, added it to the attachments, and then inserted it into the media section.
Mооnst@r
Posts from Heroes of Might & Magic: Olden Era - Обсуждение
Mооnst@r
AstralLein
Auto-translated
Yesterday, I also considered different options, but I didn't think of VK Video.
In general, swordsmen, base, main upgrade, and alternate upgrade. Tier 1 unit of the Temple. For those who are tired of human heroes, here are human units, so to speak.
The hit effect is probably still a placeholder.
In general, swordsmen, base, main upgrade, and alternate upgrade. Tier 1 unit of the Temple. For those who are tired of human heroes, here are human units, so to speak.
The hit effect is probably still a placeholder.
Mооnst@r
Auto-translated
I really don't like it when they add unnecessary flashy effects. They just swing their swords, and the effects fly everywhere, like in an anime.
Небо
Auto-translated
Creating such games in 2024 is a thankless task. So far, it doesn't look as terrible as previous attempts to revive the franchise; it's clear that people are working better than the no-name Indians, or whoever made parts 6 and 7. But at first glance, it seems that the developers are already in a difficult position and are trying to please everyone. That is, you either simplify everything to the level of a mobile game, or you create an old-school, hardcore turn-based strategy. In the first case, you can at least earn something, but the game is forgotten by everyone after the first playthrough; in the second case, it's a masterpiece for the ages, but you go bankrupt, or rather, no one will give you money and the development won't even start, because there are very few fans of this genre compared to other games, and besides, the vast majority of them are in the CIS, lol. The developers are trying to please both groups, and the result will most likely be something quite mediocre, which means they won't earn money and the fans will be disappointed.
Небо – мольбы не ждёт
Небо – угроз не слышит
Небо – ведёт особый счёт
Небо – тебя найдёт
Небо – угроз не слышит
Небо – ведёт особый счёт
Небо – тебя найдёт
По вопросам модерации: nebov24@gmail.com
Ment
Auto-translated
I don't know how to properly embed such videos here. I extracted it from VK, added it to the attachments, and then uploaded it to Media.
Meanwhile, it's quite ironic to call a blind troglodyte a sun defender (sorry, I couldn't resist).
because there are very few fans of this genre compared to other games, and most of them are in the CIS, lol
Небо
Auto-translated
You can check the statistics on Steam. For example, Paradox games, which you mentioned, are regularly updated and supported: Stellaris has 10,667 players, and Crusader Kings has 13,481. Or, if you look at the strategy games section on Steam, Age of Empires IV has 7,280 players. Then, take a single-player game like The Witcher 3: 12,829 players (and people also play these games on consoles, unlike strategy games). Civilization has a decent 38,000 players. I don't even compare it to games like Dota and Warcraft.
You can make money from strategy games; otherwise, they wouldn't be made at all. But it's not as easy as with other games. It's not just about the publishers; even the players themselves don't want to pay for the development of a good game that they have to wait several years for.
Ment
Auto-translated
So, just to add to that. Since you mentioned Dota, you can open the page with the list of games, and you'll see that Smait has 2.5k players online, Paladins has 2.8k, and so on. Surprisingly, some unknown game called Hero's Land has almost 9k. Yes, Dota has 500k, but it and League of Legends are the only ones in that range, which says something...
And if you look not at the raw numbers, but simply at profitability (because that's supposedly the point of any business), then there doesn't seem to be a problem at all.
Rather, your statistics suggest that it should be extremely profitable to make games like The Witcher 3: people are still playing it (and therefore buying it), even though the cost of supporting it at this stage is zero. To get even half of The Witcher's online numbers, strategy games, and even online games, have to constantly maintain servers, release patches, and create additional content. But again, this could be a statistical outlier; not all single-player games achieve The Witcher's level of fame.
And if you look not at the raw numbers, but simply at profitability (because that's supposedly the point of any business), then there doesn't seem to be a problem at all.
Rather, your statistics suggest that it should be extremely profitable to make games like The Witcher 3: people are still playing it (and therefore buying it), even though the cost of supporting it at this stage is zero. To get even half of The Witcher's online numbers, strategy games, and even online games, have to constantly maintain servers, release patches, and create additional content. But again, this could be a statistical outlier; not all single-player games achieve The Witcher's level of fame.
Андрей
Auto-translated
Basically, swordsmen, a base, the main upgrade, and an alternate upgrade. Tier 1 unit of the Temple.
ДУРАКОВ ОЧЕНЬ МАЛО, НО ОНИ РАССТАВЛЕНЫ ТАК ГРАМОТНО, ЧТО ВСТРЕЧАЮТСЯ НА КАЖДОМ ШАГУ.
Прошу прощения у Arandor-а. Я слишком резко отреагировал. Просто очень люблю спорт. Извини...[/SIZE]
Прошу прощения у Arandor-а. Я слишком резко отреагировал. Просто очень люблю спорт. Извини...[/SIZE]
AstralLein
Auto-translated
“Base” is a specialized term in the HoMM community to denote unupgraded units; it is also referred to as the basic grade or basic upgrade. It’s a case of linguistic economy. A literal Russian translation is practically never used.
We already have a community member, OE, who complains about every English term used in the chat. The spot is taken.
Небо
Auto-translated
That's just an addition. Since you mentioned Dota, open the page with the moba games; Smait has 2.5k online, Paladins has 2.8k, and so on. Surprisingly, some unknown Hero's Land has almost 9k. Yes, Dota has 500k, but it and LoL are the only ones in the genre, which says something...
And if you look not at the raw numbers, but simply at profitability (because that's supposedly the point of any business), then there's no problem at all.
Rather, your statistics suggest that it should be extremely profitable to make games like The Witcher 3: people are still playing it (and therefore buying it), even though the cost of supporting it at this stage is zero. To get even half of The Witcher's online numbers, strategy games, and even online games, have to constantly maintain servers, release patches, and additional content. But again, this could be a statistical outlier; not all single-player games achieve The Witcher's fame.
Ment
Auto-translated
That's how I compared popular strategy games with popular non-strategy games. And strategy games lose in any case.
In the end, no one knows how much money was invested in it. Maybe it paid off well. Maybe the developers are now struggling to pay off their loans.
But you can aim from the very beginning at the underserved audience of strategy gamers, who will basically eat up anything. Yes, you probably won't be swimming in gold (or ore, gems, timonium, or energy credits) because of them, unless you're lucky enough to be one of the chosen few. But regarding your final statement:
The thing is, not everything is. Any business is a risk of losing all your money. Publishers probably have some statistics on probabilities and will invest more where there is less risk of losing money and where they can earn at least something. I highly doubt that strategy games are on the list of low-risk, high-profit ventures; rather, the opposite.
The expected profit may be small, yes. There are no super-profitable DOTAs among strategy games.
Also, the monetization scheme itself – a person comes, buys. Or decides that it's too expensive and doesn't buy. It doesn't sound very profitable compared to "lure them in with a free-to-play game, and then once they're hooked, make them pay with microtransactions, muahahaha." Most large publishers don't want to work hard and earn little; they'd rather make one project that will be a hit and can be milked for years, and you'll just lazily add and sell skins in it.
But – if your players are lured away by competitors, then you'll be left with nothing... But in offline genres, your job is to sell it, and if you sell it well, you can also make DLC that's simpler and faster. I don't see how this can be more risky and difficult to plan; it seems more like it's just about greed.
Небо
Auto-translated
I probably wrote it in a confusing way, but my main point is that you shouldn't expect a game to become super popular when you're making it. Investors look at Dota's stats, say "Wow, that's great, even the non-peak online is 500k, we need to jump into the MOBA genre! Let's go, faster, I'll give you money, and you'll rake it in!" – but with a 99% probability, at best, they'll end up with Smite... Which, by the way, is also one of the most popular representatives of the genre, it appears in the news, yes, but it no longer reaches the level of a mediocre strategy game (let alone a top-tier one like Civilization).
Most major publishers don't want to work hard and earn little; it's better to make one project that will be a hit and will be milked for many years, and you will lazily add and sell new skins for it.
it still seems that the problem is greed.
Ment
Auto-translated
Now imagine the same situation, but with Smite taking the place of the strategy game, and it has 0 players online. In another genre, you might not become mega-popular, but someone will still play it.
4,983 players in-game
Небо
Auto-translated
Total War is a fairly popular series in this genre, so a bad, unknown strategy game won't have 5,000 players online.
Pavlinho
Auto-translated
Rome 2 was a failure???? People are still creating mods for it...
P.S. I don't know if there's any game in the series that was a complete flop...
P.S. I don't know if there's any game in the series that was a complete flop...