[Arryn]

Despite the fact you're just being snide and sarcastic, which is not only unlike you, but bebeath you, I'm actually going to bother replying to each point.

Gandalf Parker said:
Arryn you are such an expert on everything.

Envious?

Gandalf Parker said:
But while you are at it, why dont they make Dom2 into an XBox game? Thats going well.

Wrong demographic. Other than that, why not? Dom 2 isn't resource-intensive so it should actually work on that hardware. (No need to answer, my reply is a rhetorical comeback to your sarcasm.)

Gandalf Parker said:
Or maybe they can release a Dom1 Version for PDA's or Cell Phones?

Nah. Screen's too small.

Gandalf Parker said:
I know. They should put full page ads in every gaming magazine.

No need. The free press from CG and CGW is more than enough.

Gandalf Parker said:
And they can send free CD's of Dom1 (which did hook alot of people) in the snail mail to everyone in America. AOL made it work.

AOL can afford to do that since they charge more for service than almost every other ISP in the US, and with economies of scale, their incremental costs are neglible compared to mom & pop ISPs, which would be the ISP equivalent of indie game publishers. If IW was as big as Bioware they might well be able to afford to stuff free CDs in the gaming magazines. But if IW was that big, they'd also be able to afford a UI programmer ...

Gandalf Parker said:
Microsoft is able to handle huge impacts of suddenly announcing the release of something long awaited. All they do is maintain servers all over the country load-balanced.

Given the unit counts for something like Dom 2, comparisons to Microsoft or EA or Sony are pointless. Go back to valid comparisons like Stardock or Spiderweb.

Gandalf Parker said:
Of course there are people who make things work. And for each one there are dozens who crash and burn making the effort to jump in fast.

The point of doing research is twofold, first to see what those who succeeded did right so you can emulate them, and second to see what those who failed did wrong so you can avoid those mistakes. You do not do research to justify fear of failure. And it's fear of failure that you're using as a stick to beat back questions of what's preventing the emulation of success.

Gandalf Parker said:
What you are really asking is why doesnt Shrapnel jump in and gamble the big bucks (or big crash) like a few others are doing.

No, Gandalf. That's not what I asked. I didn't ask why they aren't doing X (which Richard has already answered several times). I asked what's preventing them from doing X. A subtle, but important difference. I was trying to understand whether Shrapnel's not doing something is due to lack of resources, internal politics (or some other reason that they might not wish to divulge), since the reasons being given do not make sense to me when I scratch beneath the surface of them.

Richard made general statements and I cited specific examples to the contrary. That's elementary debate and logic. He made claims and all I'm doing is asking if he can back his claims up. I realize that he's not obligated to "prove" anything, but if he's going to bother to try to do so, then his "proof" should be able to withstand objective scrutiny.