So the product ends up scrapped. That's the company's decision as owner of the product, not the decision of the consumer to make for the company.
The company knows what the employees are capable of doing, what resources are at their disposal and most importantly, how many consumers have expressed interest in their product. They know whether it is worth their time to remake the product in whole or in part, or if they are better off scrapping it altogether.
You don't. I don't. Even shareholders are only going to know part of the information at best depending on local regulatory disclosure requirements.
When it comes to healing, the NA/EU players bases are divided on whether changes are needed and what those changes should be. On the other hand, we're hearing from the JP playerbase that they're fine with the state of healing. Someone commented about how healing design in this game more or less aligns with JRPG healing design in general.
Being a JP company far more familiar with JRPG design than Western MMORPG design, does it make more sense for SE to stick to the healing design that they know the unified part of their customers want or does it make more sense to throw darts at a dartboard trying to figure out what the fractured part of their customers will accept? Most companies are going to stick with the certain winner instead of risking everything on a maybe.
Are you able to accept that you may end up one of those not pleased if SE chooses to provide what a different segment of the player wants over what you want? As the owner, they don't have to listen to you as much as you want to convince yourself otherwise.
We're all just little fish in a big ocean and there's no way a current for change is going to get generated when everyone is swimming in different directions. The strikers should have come to agreement about what change was needed before announcing their strike.



Reply With Quote


