This editorial is in response to Fargo's editorial "Add On Packs: Pro or Con?" (most of which is reprinted here). I assert that his statements are based on inaccurate poll results, his market split theory is wrong, and his suggested solutions are economically unsound.

Fargo's take: Look, according to the last PQ poll, 70% of our readers didn't buy the Quake II mission pack. 9% hadn't even heard about it! And it's safe to assume the people who answer the PlanetQuake polls are among the hard core of Quakedom. Does anybody bother with mission packs?

First, let's deal with the poll itself. Here are the facts: The poll was hardly scientific. There is potential for a huge margin of error. A total of 1350 people responded to this poll. There is no way to determine whether these people are actually part of the market group that would potentially purchase the mission pack. The poll was conducted a short two weeks after the pack was released (I hadn't even seen it in stores at that point). Most importantly, the very nature of the poll eliminated participation from the majority of the target market: gamer's who are not connected to the net.

I like to deal in facts rather than rumors and theories, so here are some more facts: Dissolution of Eternity did quite well in sales, as did Scourge of Armagon. Initial sales of The Reckoning show that it too will do quite well in sales. What do these have in common? Marketing of course, but also quality. The more a product has to offer its audience, the better it will do, and I think there is a large error of reasoning in stating that a mission pack will not do well because it is a mission pack. The issue of quality is not considered in such a statement.

Now, let's look at the subjects of the poll. The Reckoning is primarily a single player Quake II mission pack. So far, there has not been a great deal of "in your face" hype and marketing for it. What's in the mission pack? New Quake II style levels, a few new weapons, and a few new or modified monsters. This is Xatrix's first shot at a Quake style game, and they do not have the luxury of a pre-established base of Quake fans yet.

The above is being used in a comparison with Team Fortress 2. Team Fortress 2 is going to be a commercial multiplayer add-on for Half-Life. Team Fortress was (and is) arguably one of the most popular and extendible multiplayer mods for Quake, and has spawned a large community of Team Fortress fans. The few comments and reviews for Team Fortress 2 are overwhelmingly positive. The add-on will contain 20+ new Team Fortress levels, all new weapons, and all new models.

Fargo is using an inaccurate poll, taking the information out of context, and using it to estimate the potential for success of an unrelated product.

Now let's do a little number crunching. We can anticipate that this Summer the first-person gaming audience will be fractured between Half-Life, Sin, and Unreal (and possibly others -- keep in mind that Quake II still sells.) Start with Half-Life's piece of that pie, and now lop off 80% if we're to believe the numbers above. There's not many gamers left over. And that's probably where TF2 stands. Give it a couple of weeks before Daikatana comes out ... and it's looking awfully grim. Keep in mind that this is a game with AWESOME multiplayer potential, one that will be tons more fun if given the largest possible audience. Valve has assured us that they'll be marketing TF2 aggressively -- will that be enough to counteract "The Mission Pack stygma?"

First, it is an error to assume that the gaming market will be fractured between these games. I bought Quake2 and Unreal, and I plan on buying Half-Life and Sin as well. Companies do not (and cannot) have exclusives on customers. Second, the reasoning behind the figures quoted have no rational basis. Fact: TF2 and Half-Life have awesome multiplayer potential. Fact: Valve will be aggressively marketing TF2. Fact: TF (and as a derivative, TF2) already has an exceptionally strong following. I'm not going to be so naive as to suggest an actual percentage that TF2 will get out of the market, but going by the facts, I would bet that, as a commercial product, it will do well.

If TF2 won't be bundled with the game, how about marketing it as a standalone product? I'm going to stick by my guns and say it's probably one of the most exciting multiplayer games on the horizon; I'd gladly pay full price for it if it didn't require Half-Life, provided TF Software follows through with the all the great ideas I saw at E3.

Let's examine this idea. It is being proposed that either a) TF2 should be bundled with Half-Life, or b) the consumer should have the choice between buying Half-Life, or buying a standalone version of TF2 that doesn't require buying Half-Life (which is, by necessity, Half-Life bundled with TF2). Please tell me what the difference is between having TF2 bundled with Half-Life, and the proposed standalone version of TF2. From a consumer's viewpoint, if you were faced with the option of either buying Half-Life, or Half-Life bundled with TF2, would anyone chose to get less for his dollar and not get TF2?? From a purely economic viewpoint, this doesn't make sense.

Conclusion

Here is my take on the issue: When I look at a product, the criterion I use when deciding whether or not to buy is "Does the product interest me?", "Is it a quality product?", and "Can I afford this product?". Can someone's opinion change any of the answers to these questions? No. Can previous market circumstances, including previous product sales, change the answers? Again, no. The only corollary question that can change the answers is "Can I get something equal or better for less money?"