Now that you put it into a different light it does sound a bit cooler. However isn't this just a simple case of supply and demand rather than an entire ecosystem?
People will churn through the bears and make them extinct, and if making them extinct makes the hides more valuable, what's stopping them?
And if the bear does become extinct in a few days on release, how much are you willing to pay for the artist who made the bear?
I also can't see this as an ecosystem being the main focus of a game, it would also be hella expensive to pull off as a side feature.
Red Eye wrote:
pretty much every strategy game since chess has scratched the surface of resource management/ conservation. For instance: Age of Empires has you forage, this then determines you military capability etc...
Sorry I missed this part (I know i am nitpicking sorry
). Resource based RTS is about churning through as many resources as possible, not conserving them. A bad player is one who doesn't have constant peon production and overloading trees/goldmines with them and spending all the resources that come in as fast as possible.
This is why Starcraft has moved from micro to macro based play. Fast expansions are now the norm, where as they used to be perceived as really risky before. Macro, strats and timings are much better so they are able to deal with having masses of resources coming in and spending them all and defend from 1 base rushes.
Also even when you are contained to one base you end up using your minerals faster to keep the same size army, you don't conserve them. Management is simplified to how fast you can spend them. If you find your macro is perfect and still aren't using all your resources, you build and pump from more barracks to keep your mineral count down or tech.