Sure, but a fragmented player base impacts Valve's bottom line more than anything else, so I don't understand why this is an argument.
Oh no! A few thousand players will stay on the old game while the new one will still absolutely dominate the charts because people like new and novel.
Genuinely, who would that deeply affect outside of Valve trying to make sure the player base is all on the current game to make the most money? Why are we defending business practices that are clearly aimed at making the most profit at the expense of customer service?
Weren't we all supposed to be Valve fans because we expect better of them?
Its not true. A fragmented playerbase hurts everyone. I was there in the Source vs CS 1.6 days.
Source and 1.6 were basically completely seperate communities, which were only really unified when CS:GO came out.
Imagine getting the new CS only to find out all your friends refuse to move to the new game, so you have to go there too if you want to play with them and learn everything anew just when you learned the ropes in the new game. A terrible new user experience, which hampers growth, which leads to a dying game.
Updating a hugely successful game is always difficult. Should you cater to the "old guard"? Absolutely. But when they are a contentious bunch who hate change, you just have to force them, or they will paint themselves into a corner, completely isolating themselves from new players. They would probably see this as a win too: no annoying "n00bs".
This would be exactly the situation that developed between 1.6 and Source.
If you look at steam charts you'll see that it's not the case that everyone switched to CSGO when it released. Most states on 1.6 or CSS. The player base was so fragmented that they had folks from 2 games migrating slowly.
Funny, on release day, I got downvoted for pointing out they pulled a Blizzard/Overwatch 2.
Half-baked release with missing content and no new content? Check.
Release removes previous release, a game that was at one time a paid game? Check.
I feel like Valve gets way too much of a pass here on this for just being Valve.
CS:GO is still there btw, under the beta options
I've been having a ball with CS2, and I think releasing at it as a separate game to CSGO would only fragment the player base.
Sure, but a fragmented player base impacts Valve's bottom line more than anything else, so I don't understand why this is an argument.
Oh no! A few thousand players will stay on the old game while the new one will still absolutely dominate the charts because people like new and novel.
Genuinely, who would that deeply affect outside of Valve trying to make sure the player base is all on the current game to make the most money? Why are we defending business practices that are clearly aimed at making the most profit at the expense of customer service?
Weren't we all supposed to be Valve fans because we expect better of them?
Its not true. A fragmented playerbase hurts everyone. I was there in the Source vs CS 1.6 days. Source and 1.6 were basically completely seperate communities, which were only really unified when CS:GO came out.
Imagine getting the new CS only to find out all your friends refuse to move to the new game, so you have to go there too if you want to play with them and learn everything anew just when you learned the ropes in the new game. A terrible new user experience, which hampers growth, which leads to a dying game.
Updating a hugely successful game is always difficult. Should you cater to the "old guard"? Absolutely. But when they are a contentious bunch who hate change, you just have to force them, or they will paint themselves into a corner, completely isolating themselves from new players. They would probably see this as a win too: no annoying "n00bs".
This would be exactly the situation that developed between 1.6 and Source.
If you look at steam charts you'll see that it's not the case that everyone switched to CSGO when it released. Most states on 1.6 or CSS. The player base was so fragmented that they had folks from 2 games migrating slowly.