Chu Wolf said:
In the end it is a business decision by FFG.
Actually, it is a design decision. Its an adversarial game that requires human intellect as an antagonist.
Plenty of dungeon crawl games out there now that are co-op without having to make every last game on the planet a co-op. FFG just recently released one called Gears of War. Not that co-ops are bad, but there seems to be a resounding tenor amongst some consumers that every game needs to be able to be played solo/co-op.
Find a game that fits the bill and play it. Expecting a clearly adversarial game to be played co-op is a fairly major design difference. Like night and day. A completely new design.
Just as you wont likely buy it if it lacks co-op capability, I will likely not buy it if it does.
The above isn't aimed directly at Chu Wolf (he is just quoted incidentally), but at the crowd in general that gathers at every single new game mewling for co-op rules for clearly non-cooperative games.
It's akin to somebody going to the Pandemic game page on BGG and asking how a person can play the diseases against everyone else trying to thwart him. A booming sound of hands slapping their own foreheads can be heard as it clearly is not the sort of game where it is one against everyone else.
Also, why would someone want to play the game if the co-op design was just an afterthought? Doesnt sound like a very fulfilling experience. I would rather play a co-op that was meant to be a co-op right from the beginning of the design process. Much as I would rather play an adversarial game that was meant to be such from the beginning. Designs from an afterthought generally stink.
Kind of like movies made with 3d tech in mind and movies made into 3d during post production. One is clearly superior in what it does compared to the other. Why settle for the half measure?
So including co-op rules for an adversarial game actually would hurt the game by inlcuding both. Because neither is getting the full attention that either design deserves and the game would suffer for it. It really is an "either or" situation here.
I'm sorry, I just don't see it that way.
It shouldn't be a matter of redesigning every single aspect of the game from scratch. Most, if not all, of the components should be reusuable in a co-op version. It should just need some new rules and maybe new cards.
In other words, instead of it being like a "pure" 3D movie versus a "pseudo" 3D movie, I see it more like the 1931 film version of Dracula where the Spanish-language version was filmed using the same sets but with different different actors and director.
Also, I hardly see what's wrong about consumers voicing their opinion about what they want game companies to produce. If you want every game to be adversarial, feel free to go to every forum and say so. It won't bother me in the slightest.
It is also incomprehensible to me why you would not purchase the game if it has co-op *as well as* adversarial modes. If it has the method of play you enjoy, why care if it comes with an additional method?