Hmm... I see... Hmm... yes... hmm... actually... no ! hmm... no ! Definitely no !

Why not: Play this amazing game, you don't know what it is, but buy it ! Marketing should focus more around the product unless you want to make a campaign "mystery" like which involve more than one ad and over a period of time to reveal it progressively.

But I like Stardocks because it's not a big company like Blizzard who can spend millions on marketing (because marketing is horribly expensive) but it's also not small independant developpers. So to increase the game experience and development by cutting off the marketing, boxing, etc... So they will just get advertisement through reviews mainly and it will go viral. They plan a lot on the "snowball effect" where players buy, play and interest their friend to buy it and so on (so the snowball gets bigger and bigger). That's why we never saw anything big for SOASE but the game is truly amazing.

I second that 

I really hate EA ! They're the worst game makers ever and destroyer of license too ! What happened to C&C ???

Stardock is in the middlemarket and I think they have the best place ever ! I'm really glad of their strategies.

Let's make a great campaign ! (And force people to buy it... ) but let's focus more on the game and presenting all the good points about it and why poeple would dream to play it.

Especially since we have a big power compared to advertising, we don't have to make a short and concise message to sell it, we can actually develop the perks, we can act like HR poeple (who actually sell their product while doing an interview for some kind of newspaper). Those are not oftenly seen by poeple but it's not very important for companies since it's a free advertisement.

Kane deserved better.

Eh, the series effectively died for me when they released Generals.  It was never C&C after that point, and no other title has ever filled the gap in the genre it left behind.

CnC3 actually had a decent story, but the gameplay was terrible. RA3 was the opposite, with awful lore but good gameplay. 4 took the gameplay of CnC3 and the story of 4.

There are some for the orginial SINS and Entrechment I think.

Well, by this reaction I would say I got the very best of CnC when I purchased the First Decade. The Battle for Middle-earth series was built on the same engine, but it just wasn't the same. The same thing happened to Pandemic Studios when EA had them throw together LotR Conquest, which wasn't even in the same league as the Battlefront series which was again built on the same engine; the moral of the story, good developers tend to lose their mojo under the wing of EA.

I had heard of Sins not long after it came out, but only recently purchased it and its expansions, because I found it at Target for $10, and I am very satisfied I took a chance on it. Once Sins moves to 64bit and multithreading, it will reach its full potential.

Exactly. The best CnCs around are still Tiberian sun Firestorm and Red Alert 2 Yuris Revenge. I wish they would just remake the gameplay of those two in a modern engine, maybe adding some of the cooler things from the latter games, like unit abilities and better research.

It probably wouldn't have been made at all.  It would have probably been deemed too risky, both in execution and profit.  Bigger publishers usually seem reluctant, or even afraid, to try something different.  I admit that until I played the Sins beta, I was afraid that this game would be too good to be true (Ironclad certainly proved otherwise, though).

lets say we did the marketing and succeded,but will the devs support increased number of players online - without lags and downtimes?

Eh....nothing beats the depth and complexity of Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri...too bad Firaxis got caught up with Civ...

Guerrilla marketing turns off as many people as it interests. No one likes a VM in their community.