Da missverstehst du ihn aber. Er vergleicht Spiele wie EU4 mit Bloodlines 2 und da hat er doch recht, dass Spiele wie Bloodlines (insbesondre welche, die Paradox selbst unter optimalen Bedingungen finanziell stemmen könnte) nicht über die Langlebigkeit wie deren hauseigenen Strategiespiele verfügt. Das volle Zitat macht das mMn recht deutlich:
"I think some studios do strategic investments, long term things, because they feel that the cost of not doing it is too high. But, I mean, I think it's fairly clear, at least to me, and I think to you, even in the best of cases, Bloodlines does not have a super long shelf life. That's not the way these games behave. You have an influx of players, there's a bit of word of mouth, and they have a high peak, and then they trail off. And it's not the type of gameplay that develops over time that much. So I think that's part of why these types of games are not really that attractive to us." Und weiter: "If we hadn't found The Chinese Room," deputy CEO Mattias Lilja said, "and seen what they'd done with the early work, [cancellation] would have been the next logical step, because we could not continue as we did."
Hier sagt er noch, dass The Chinese Room das Spiel überhaupt gerettet hat. Dass Bloodlines 2 nicht bestestes wird, war doch zu erwarten, insbesondere nach dem ganzen Missmanagement, gehört zur IP.
