Giants going the Arcade way?

[snekko]

This is just a guess, but I don't think anyone at Giants really cares about farming. They develop with minimal effort and attention to detail. They add what they think will sell copies, whether it relates to farming or not. Their saving grace are the modders, children at Christmas time, and the people who get a kick out of driving something with a brand name pinned to it.
I guess another saving grace is that I can play the way I want, by ignoring 80ish% of the content and stick to the farming.

I think that Giants has developed a good basic game, which you can personalize through mods so that it perfectly meets your own preferences.

Do you want old-fashioned farming? You can do it.
Do you want to take care of the animals?
You can do it.
Forestry?
You can do it.
Arcade or realistic?
What ever you want. You can play that part of the game you like, and ignore everyting else.

In this way they can win over a much larger group of people who buy the game, so that they indeed earn more money, but can continue to develop the game.

And yes, they want to earn as much money as possible, because it is a job. Make money for living. It's a business, not a charity.

They can certainly make a game that is more realistic, more perfect, more beautiful and more challenging. But if 75% of your players quit, that's not a good business plan.

[FBtheSQL]

	This is just a guess, but I don't think anyone at Giants really cares about farming. They develop with minimal effort and attention to detail. They add what they think will sell copies, whether it relates to farming or not. Their saving grace are the modders, children at Christmas time, and the people who get a kick out of driving something with a brand name pinned to it. I guess another saving grace is that I can play the way I want, by ignoring 80ish% of the content and stick to the farming. I think that Giants has developed a good basic game, which you can personalize through mods so that it perfectly meets your own preferences. Do you want old-fashioned farming? You can do it. Do you want to take care of the animals? You can do it. Forestry? You can do it. Arcade or realistic? What ever you want. You can play that part of the game you like, and ignore everyting else. In this way they can win over a much larger group of people who buy the game, so that they indeed earn more money, but can continue to develop the game. And yes, they want to earn as much money as possible, because it is a job. Make money for living. It's a business, not a charity.

They can certainly make a game that is more realistic, more perfect, more beautiful and more challenging. But if 75% of your players quit, that's not a good business plan.

Relying on modders to complete your game, and prevent 75% of players from quitting is not a good business plan either.

I agree with you though, we can play the game the way we like, and that is why I'm still playing, despite my nagging.

[Noraf]

I think you misunderstood the % usage here.
It would be 25% quitting, and that's a whole lot better than 75% quitting.

[herrman]

Arcade is hard linked to casual gamers, while hardcore simulation addiction is tied to those who took FS from 2008 to 2024 with their checks.

The PRO of a casual gamer is for sure the attitude to be attracted by a new kind of gaming. Plus there are millions of them. But what's the CON of the same casual gamer?

He gets bored as fast as he gets fashioned. Sometimes faster. He's the typical individual thinking "see one, see all..." so...

Time to time

[Eische]

I don't think that you can put FS players in just two boxes.
There are many different play styles out there. And everyone has a different understanding of what level of realism he wants to see in this game.

All we know is that the current game sells very good.
Would it sell as good with more optional realism added? Maybe. But it would be way more work for Giants to implement/test/maintain and eventually reduce profit.
If Giants spends a lot of time/ressources into something used only by 5% of players, will potential newly attracted players balance the costs? Maybe.
But why should Giants take this risk?

What is the right way to implement any given realism feature?
Just think about crop selling prices. Sell prices are different from region to region and country to country. How capture this? Having a menu with adjustment sliders to enable every player to adjust the price to their liking? Sounds overly complicated.

I'm not saying that the current state of the game is perfect. But just adding realism stuff for the sake of more realism does not automatically make the game better.

Many people mention to add CP capabilities into base game. I completely agree.
But not just as a copy of it with the overly detailed setup menu. It needs to be trimmed down significantly.
There are recommended settings for all kinds of machines. Why not pre-define these settings for each implement/machine type?
Why does the player need to be able to specify how big endrows should be? It could just be something like 3 rows but at least 9 meters. No setting option needed.
If done right, the simple helper could be started in the same way as today, but will do its work with all those predefined settings.

[Lexie]

The lack of GPS in the basegame is for me problematic, as modern farming rely on it.
The AI workers already can make a straight line, so a basic option is possible.
Add a option to skip 3, 6 or whatever amount of meters (depending on the size of the implement) and turn earlier on the headland and you have already something. It's like an advanced AI worker, but you have to stay in the machine.

[Mobias]

Although the physics in FS22 are far, far better than they were in FS17 I do miss the MR (more realistic) mod FS17 had. It really felt like everything had real weight to it. Tractors and combines felt incredibly ponderously heavy. The physics in FS22 are still too arcade like for my liking. Everything still bounces around too much.

[FBtheSQL]

I think you misunderstood the % usage here.
It would be 25% quitting, and that's a whole lot better than 75% quitting.

Read it again, it literally says 75% quitting. Doesn't matter though, there's no basis for the numbers anyway.

[mydixiewrecked]

New math?

[Noraf]

Depends
It can be read both ways.
75% quitting because it gets to hard-core, or the other 25% quitting because it gets to arcade. But yes, the numbers are grabbed from the air I would guess.

[FBtheSQL]

75% quitting can only be read one way.
However, my reply, could be read two ways:

I read it again, it literally says 75% quitting.
or
You should read it again, it literally says 75% quitting.

[Riven326]

I think they should double down on the simulation aspect of these games. They already feel a little too arcade to me.