I understand. This is a forum, so I am not going to add expansive footnotes to my posts, but I am happy to cite the research I have read if asked. FWIW, I have also read counter argument for approaches used by the research I have cited (which I don’t find convincing).
Just pointing out that I am not randomly making stuff up.
The level of support for the Russian armed forces has not changed significantly since the beginning of the conflict – the majority of respondents (76%) support the actions of Russian troops in Ukraine, including 48% “definitely support” and another 28% “rather support” the action of Russian army. 16% are against.
Research with preference falsification adjustments with respect to support for the full scale invasion:
The vast majority of Russians (86%) consistently support the accession of Crimea to Russia – this indicator has fluctuated slightly since 2014. 9% do not support the accession.
Research with preference falsification adjustments with respect to support for annexation of Crimea:
Using the list-experiment technique, Timothy Frye and others showed that Putin's approval rating after the annexation of Crimea was actually high, at around 80%. In their study, they made a list of famous Russian politicians and had respondents answer how many of these politicians they supported. They then estimated Putin's approval rating by adding the name "Putin" to the list for only one group[*]3 and thus concluded that the high approval ratings after the annexation of Crimea were not very different from the findings of opinion pollsters.
A high level overview of russian support for the invasion of Ukraine (a summary, but with links to relevant research, albeit some sources will be in russian):
Younger people still support the war in high numbers, though their support is lower than that of the older generation: 75–80 percent of people fifty-five and older support the Russian army’s actions in Ukraine, while 61 percent of young respondents in Levada polls share this sentiment.
I hope I was able to at least share my own reasoning (even if you don't agree). And I think we can both agree that TCR does not have any experience in RPG games.
I enjoy walking sims (Soma is one of my favourite games of all time) in general and TCR's releases as well.
That doesn't mean one can't recognize that TCR tends to struggle even with relatively simple gameplay and that a game like Bloodlines requires strong gameplay design/implementation skills.
While I loved the atmosphere of Still Wakes the Deep, there were many situations where weak gameplay undermined the ambiance and immersion.
An earlier statement from one of the Paradox PR reps (before release):
"I actually played Bloodlines 1 quite recently, and it is a good game, but it is also an old game, and there are many things that would not fly today," Lilja said. "But I understand why people were super psyched by it in 2004, because it had a lot of cool [elements], and the feeling of being a vampire is really strong, regardless of other features. But I think people, they remember their feelings about it. And if they replayed it, I think they would see that it's a competently good game by 2004 standards, now that it's patched.
Seems like their approach to Bloodlines 2 isn't much of "high flyer" in the year 2025.
In defence of the PR rep, they were open about Bloodlines 2 not having much to do with the original and that it was more of vampire themed linear action game.
But in that case, why would you have internal targets of 2M+ initial sales if your plan is to have a radical departure from a well known cult classic RPG known for its roleplaying and strong writing?
Chinese Room is clearly a bad fit for Bloodlines. They have zero experience with RPG games.
They make good walking-sim style gaming experiences with strong atmosphere and world-building, but they've never made any RPGs. Bloodlines was a living world full of dynamism (remember the Voerman twins missions?).
Their gameplay also tends to be subpar. The original Bloodlines had some flaws with gameplay (combat), but you still had a lot of different gameplay options and approaches.
Why shouldn't people have expectations for a strong roleplaying experience and player freedom for a Bloodlines game?
They have the best cost per barrel economics out of all countries (at scale) and they still hold a stupid high % of the market (10%+).
Their game investment strategy is of course a massive failure. They will exist in 24-36 months. You don't need to be a financial analyst to understand this.
I work in market research. Data at this level of granularity (price band view) is extremely expensive.
Around 300K per year and that would also likely only include a few retailers GameStop, BestBuy, Walmart. I don't remember off the top of my head, but I believe Steam data wouldn't be included.
It's very likely Valve doesn't share the full dataset with anyone. Maybe partial data with some of their biggest partners.
Huge player of Cities in Motion 1/2. I still play both of them to this day.
Cities in Motion 2's city building elements were basically a prototype for Cities Skylines. The look and feel are very similar (of course CiM2 didn't really have city-building management layer, just public transit).