On the contrary, that dude actually appears to be simpatico. Got nothing personal about it, why in the world should I?
That changes nothing.
SC is not solely responsible for some very real (not imaginary, ok?) downfall of EA.
You guys actually know a lot better the whole other reasons. As displayed in the last page.
What conclusion was not written in black and white is that, from business pow, SC too was a fail.
The fail that put the cherry on top of all the others.
And it’s not like SC was something of a shady indie title, on the contrary, it was designed to be easier to play, social ‘n’ stuff, so that it gets a better market.
It was designed to be a boy band, unlike the quality jazz SC4 was.
So don’t even try to say that it didn’t succeeded business side because it was good but without appeal to the masses.
It failed, along those preceding it, because it was bad over all.
Why do I even bother to say it?
Because, seen from gamer’s pov, “someone” continued to argue that SC is actually tip top.
Then get business pov too.
Together with the gamer review RPS did a great job to update.
Not that the said persons, forum posters, would not be able to ignore even that, as they did discussing only the gaming side.
Even if now they go against quantifiable (stock market, CEO sacking) arguments, not just subjective personal options and preferences.
It just puts them in a better light.
Makes them go against common sense TWICE and still claim being reasonable.
As for actually buying, go ahead. Why not?
I certainly played worst than that, and I don’t really care what you play in the first place. You don’t either (about what I play). You are informed, you are vaccinated… etc…
Let’s make a virtual bet, the two of us.
EA goes above 18.5 in 4 days, you win.
EA goes below 16, I win.
Between 16-18.5, we’ll call it equal?