This must come as a shock to you, but let's make a simple thought.
Take for example very big and succesful games in the strategy genre: Dota2, LOL, StarCraft2, Heroes of the Storm, Smite and dozens of smaller (although bigger than COH2's playerbase) titles.
The people designing them spent millions of dollars in the creation and maintenance of the titles, however they released them for free. Why was that do you think?
- Few people ever pay 60$ for a game and play it for more than say 16 months. So it is unreasonable to expect COH3 Multiplayer to keep going even if it's perfect because nobody is ever satisfied with what they bought.
- The lootcrate business model, the one where you have a trading environment and basically pay for a chance to look better, seems to be way more profitable than the traditional pay to play one. Especially in this market.
- Keeping the game free makes you have a lot more players dropping in on the lower ranks, and thereby you increase the chance of fair matches and also the chance that the game will be better overall.
- Also adding seasons and better ranks makes the game more addicting and thus even free players will buy in.
- Bigger playerbase also makes every single matching algorithm work better and more efficiently.
So do we, as a community dedicated to COH, really and unironically think that COH3 Multiplayer will be better even though it will never actually have a chance of even competing with the rest of the saturated strategy market?
And just FYI: Age of Empires IV, a brand new title destined to "revive" RTS also released by Relic, right now has about the same player numbers as COH2 even though it released about 6 months ago (
proof,
previous proof but with better scale).
I just want COH to survive. It's not 2006 anymore guys.