Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

Categories

This "DLC" thing

2»

Comments

  • WhiteFlagofWarWhiteFlagofWar Senior Member Posts: 1,667Registered Users
    edited March 2015
    Vonchiefer wrote: »
    Remember when all we had to do to get new factions was play the game? I remember...

    You can bet that if they had the ability to have paid DLC back then, they would've. Comparing today's hyper-connected games to yesteryear's "all on disc or expansion packs because of technical limitations" is hardly fair.
  • Andomar ReikAndomar Reik Junior Member Posts: 13Registered Users
    edited March 2015
    I am not saying that you have said anything bad, what I am saying is that people argue that a specific faction is really vital due to their national identity. It was the same with Rome's forums and here (the whole turkic, bulgar and whatever thing). However, that is not actually the case and I honestly think people should learn to accept that. (I am saying this in regards to your German, French, Italian point) It is a game, it cannot include all factions and you get the core most famous factions that were actually advertised. Thus there is no cut content and you get the full experience. Now getting the two roman empires as a DLC would be horrendous but this is not the case. I've been keeping an eye on these forums for quite a while although I abstain from posting and I am left with the impression that there is an overall feel of entitlement. There are some very good points as well and I do agree that 3 DLCs in one month is a bit off-putting, yet it is not all bad. It is not all good, but then again it's not really nightmarish. Tbh I think CA are not the most evil corporation out there and that they are often getting **** that they do not deserve. (although they also screw things up badly)
  • Sieggi858Sieggi858 Senior Member Posts: 527Registered Users
    edited March 2015
    So...can any of you on here tell me EXACTLY what separates "cut-content" from normal "dlc"?

    Is it just because some people feel like they deserve to have those for free?

    I don't remember people calling "barbarian invasion" and "alexander" cut-content or dlc whoring. But yet the second rome 2 released CiG, everyone started screaming "Cut-content, cut-content, gimme for free"
    OS: Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit
    Processor: AMD FX-6300 six-core processor 3.5ghz
    Ram: 8gb
    GPU: AMD Radeon R9 290x
    Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-78LMT-USB3
    Hoplites had swords but only the Spartans actually trained themselves in its use. The rest had it only as decoration.
  • Knez FilipKnez Filip Junior Member Posts: 22Registered Users
    edited March 2015
    I am not saying that you have said anything bad, what I am saying is that people argue that a specific faction is really vital due to their national identity. It was the same with Rome's forums and here (the whole turkic, bulgar and whatever thing). However, that is not actually the case and I honestly think people should learn to accept that. (I am saying this in regards to your German, French, Italian point) It is a game, it cannot include all factions and you get the core most famous factions that were actually advertised. Thus there is no cut content and you get the full experience. Now getting the two roman empires as a DLC would be horrendous but this is not the case. I've been keeping an eye on these forums for quite a while although I abstain from posting and I am left with the impression that there is an overall feel of entitlement. There are some very good points as well and I do agree that 3 DLCs in one month is a bit off-putting, yet it is not all bad. It is not all good, but then again it's not really nightmarish. Tbh I think CA are not the most evil corporation out there and that they are often getting **** that they do not deserve. (although they also screw things up badly)

    Still people often want to play as their ancestors if they existed as a faction at that time.
    Also importance are based on how much they interacted with Romans (we only have their historical books of this time), and this is not really representive.
    Also i dont think Alans are more important than Alamans or Langobards at this time, they did make a big state with Vandals but so did other factions.
  • tgoodenowtgoodenow Senior Member Posts: 778Registered Users
    edited March 2015
    I disagree. If you don't like it don't buy it. Games like TW and CK2 are niche markets and additional content needs to be supported through additional funding. I get it, it didn't used to be like that. But, costs are no longer the same. Better graphics cost more money and CA is able to produce on such a high scale because they are part of Sega. To participate in Sega's economy of scale shareholders need to be paid and this payment is generated from the base game and DLC. It's as simple as that. If you don't like it either start your own company which can produce a similar product at a cheaper cost and have your company not sell DLC or simply don't buy the DLC or don't buy the game to begin with.
  • Knez FilipKnez Filip Junior Member Posts: 22Registered Users
    edited March 2015
    shawn858 wrote: »
    So...can any of you on here tell me EXACTLY what separates "cut-content" from normal "dlc"?

    Is it just because some people feel like they deserve to have those for free?

    I don't remember people calling "barbarian invasion" and "alexander" cut-content or dlc whoring. But yet the second rome 2 released CiG, everyone started screaming "Cut-content, cut-content, gimme for free"

    Of course i can. You see cut content is content that could and should be in the original game at the start or maybe added later for free, but they were cut and sold later as parts, so company gets more money of the game.
    Alexander total war on the other hand is completely different camaign for different time period and it should be sold separate and company has the right to do so.
  • Andomar ReikAndomar Reik Junior Member Posts: 13Registered Users
    edited March 2015
    I will be captain obvious and say that apparently a cut content is content that should have been in the game. The issue is a bit subjective though and I guess that it depends on what content is there (if it is enough or not, ex. in evolve a lot of people argue that the game is simply a framework for dlc and as such you have to pay more money to get the actual experience, Metro had that as well with a difficulty DLC mode saying 'The way it should be played') and on what was advertised (the camel cataphracts from Rome II are perfect example as they were advertised as part of the full game prior the release). However, one has to try to be objective and to examine the best arguments for making a point and in my humble opinion a lot of people on these forums simply expect to get things for free from a purely subjective point of view. Anyway, I also think that people should be able to express their point of view and to argue whether the price is fair if they can present a valid argumentation that is not filled with logical fallacies.
  • Knez FilipKnez Filip Junior Member Posts: 22Registered Users
    edited March 2015
    tgoodenow wrote: »
    I disagree. If you don't like it don't buy it. Games like TW and CK2 are niche markets and additional content needs to be supported through additional funding. I get it, it didn't used to be like that. But, costs are no longer the same. Better graphics cost more money and CA is able to produce on such a high scale because they are part of Sega. To participate in Sega's economy of scale shareholders need to be paid and this payment is generated from the base game and DLC. It's as simple as that. If you don't like it either start your own company which can produce a similar product at a cheaper cost and have your company not sell DLC or simply don't buy the DLC or don't buy the game to begin with.

    Yes, Paradox has 100 DLC but they are different than TW. They sell cosmetic, unimportant things like skins and all that, or they sell different camaigns like "Old Gods" for CK2.
    That is fine by me, imagine them selling game with 10 factions and then selling other separate. Also Paradox games are different games than TW and its not easy to compare them.
    If CA continue to do like this, soon they will compete with EA for the "Greediest company" reward
  • Andomar ReikAndomar Reik Junior Member Posts: 13Registered Users
    edited March 2015
    Knez Filip wrote: »
    Yes, Paradox has 100 DLC but they are different than TW. They sell cosmetic, unimportant things like skins and all that, or they sell different camaigns like "Old Gods" for CK2.
    That is fine by me, imagine them selling game with 10 factions and then selling other separate. Also Paradox games are different games than TW and its not easy to compare them.
    If CA continue to do like this, soon they will compete with EA for the "Greediest company" reward
    I am sorry to say this but your point seems like fanboyism. Look, even if you havent studied business there is something called "best practice" and market norms. As such, companies copy whatever works with other companies. Thus if you hate DLCs you have to be able to concede that it is best if they disappear altogether. Also by arguing that CA should get the most greedy company award, you leave me with the terrible impression of being an individual who obviously has not researched the industry that much, yet makes a statement nevertheless. And the whole play with your ancestor thing- well buy one pack and play with whatever ancestor you have, and don't buy the others! Problem solved! If you dont care about ancestors (that considering the speed that various nations and tribes changed and merged in Europe seems a bit far fetched) then don't buy anything at all.
  • CagataiKhanCagataiKhan Senior Member Posts: 808Registered Users
    edited March 2015
    Yeah , The guy right. Attila is beta and half game. CA sell the game piecemeal
  • Knez FilipKnez Filip Junior Member Posts: 22Registered Users
    edited March 2015
    I will be captain obvious and say that apparently a cut content is content that should have been in the game. The issue is a bit subjective though and I guess that it depends on what content is there (if it is enough or not, ex. in evolve a lot of people argue that the game is simply a framework for dlc and as such you have to pay more money to get the actual experience, Metro had that as well with a difficulty DLC mode saying 'The way it should be played') and on what was advertised (the camel cataphracts from Rome II are perfect example as they were advertised as part of the full game prior the release). However, one has to try to be objective and to examine the best arguments for making a point and in my humble opinion a lot of people on these forums simply expect to get things for free from a purely subjective point of view. Anyway, I also think that people should be able to express their point of view and to argue whether the price is fair if they can present a valid argumentation that is not filled with logical fallacies.

    I aggre with you, and i will always buy a great expansion(DLC) like Caesar in Gaul, Hannibal at the gates or Wrath of Sparta.
    These were great DLCs, and altorugh i maybe dont like some of them simply because of my prefernces (i dont like the time period, etc..), CA SHOULD sell them separate, they have a full right to.
    They will make some great expansions for Attila aswell i am sure (Charlemagne for example), but that doesnt solve my problems with these small DLCs which are really nothing but cut content of the original game.
  • Knez FilipKnez Filip Junior Member Posts: 22Registered Users
    edited March 2015
    I am sorry to say this but your point seems like fanboyism. Look, even if you havent studied business there is something called "best practice" and market norms. As such, companies copy whatever works with other companies. Thus if you hate DLCs you have to be able to concede that it is best if they disappear altogether. Also by arguing that CA should get the most greedy company award, you leave me with the terrible impression of being an individual who obviously has not researched the industry that much, yet makes a statement nevertheless. And the whole play with your ancestor thing- well buy one pack and play with whatever ancestor you have, and don't buy the others! Problem solved! If you dont care about ancestors (that considering the speed that various nations and tribes changed and merged in Europe seems a bit far fetched) then don't buy anything at all.

    If i am fan of anything, its Total war. All i am trying is to fight for my beloved series to not become one of those god awful money monger series like COD.
    I am not behind ancestor thing, i am saying just that is a good selling point for a game.
  • Andomar ReikAndomar Reik Junior Member Posts: 13Registered Users
    edited March 2015
    Knez Filip wrote: »
    If i am fan of anything, its Total war. All i am trying is to fight for my beloved series to not become one of those god awful money monger series like COD.
    I am not behind ancestor thing, i am saying just that is a good selling point for a game.
    I have to concede that these are indeed valid points.
  • Tyer032392Tyer032392 Senior Member FloridaPosts: 4,784Registered Users
    edited March 2015
    So, maybe people should stop call this stuff "cut content" if they have no definitive proof.

    Edit: Now that I think about it, I wouldn't be surprised if this thread gets either locked, or sent to the Rants and Raves section, which IMHO, this thread deserves to be in the Rants and Raves section.
    Ready for Three Kingdom's TW: I5-6600k, EVGA Geforce GTX 1070SC, 16Gigs RAM, WD Blue PC SSD @ 500GB
  • SkroogeSkrooge Junior Member Posts: 9Registered Users
    edited March 2015
    The only thing that really get's to me, is that we got 10 "new" factions after 32 days. That means that they are quite easy to create, so why wasnt the game released with more factions when it takes just 3 days to create one? Or do they need more than 3 days to make one? But that would mean that they started way before the release, with the intention to sell the seperate.
  • AkrotiriAkrotiri Senior Member Hellenic RepublicPosts: 873Registered Users
    edited March 2015
    This thread should have been locked or atleast moved to the rants and raves section. I like all DLC and purchase all of them. Why as a satisfied customer should I be subjected constantly to the incoherent rants from the anti-DLC zombie brigade anytime CA releases new content. Please mods ban, delete, merge or move these threads. It's really starting to get harassing to visit the forums.
    "Hence we will not say that Greeks fight like heroes, but that heroes fight like Greeks"
    -Winston Churchill , after the Greek victory against fascist Italy during WW2.
    explorechios.gr
  • GoslingGosling Senior Member Posts: 1,887Registered Users
    edited March 2015
    Why are they cut content? The DLC's just give you a chance to play as a culture the ai plays. It's just bonus feature that may enhance your game, if you want them. The game already has them, but you want everything. You aren't actually entitled to these DLC's and there is nothing that should be or is important to the game that isn't already there and available to play.
    "I'm gonna stomp 'em to dust. I'm gonna grind their bones. I'm gonna burn down dere towns and cities. I'm gonna pile 'em up inna big fire and roast 'em. I'm gonna bash heads, break faces, and jump up and down on the bits that are left.


    An' den I'm gonna get really mean."

    Grimgor Ironhide, Black Orc Warboss.
  • winsunshinewinsunshine Senior Member Posts: 820Registered Users
    edited March 2015
    Skrooge wrote: »
    The only thing that really get's to me, is that we got 10 "new" factions after 32 days. That means that they are quite easy to create, so why wasnt the game released with more factions when it takes just 3 days to create one? Or do they need more than 3 days to make one? But that would mean that they started way before the release, with the intention to sell the seperate.

    You are correct, it took about 3 days with a team of 8 people, about 5 artists, 2 coders and 1 writers, plus they also need to hire a cast for voice acting. However, that still not counts the staff need to do the localization.

    The biggest constrain here is the time QA staff to test the product. The Longbeard DLC has 20 days of inhouse testing before release, and the same amount of time was needed to test Celtic Invansion.

    The initial release version also has to be finalized at least a month before the release date, and no content could be added at that point as each additional content will delay the release date by 2-3 weeks.

    All these DLC of course must be planned at the initial development of Attila, just like all car manufacturer has to plan their production of extra add-on for their car.
  • kingthrallkingthrall Senior Member Posts: 188Registered Users
    edited March 2015
    xiosisland wrote: »
    This thread should have been locked or atleast moved to the rants and raves section. I like all DLC and purchase all of them. Why as a satisfied customer should I be subjected constantly to the incoherent rants from the anti-DLC zombie brigade anytime CA releases new content. Please mods ban, delete, merge or move these threads. It's really starting to get harassing to visit the forums.

    Do you hear that? Its the sound of the smallest violin playing in the world.

    Still waiting for my empire total war coop multi beta key to be released publicly as was promised. After Rome II I pretty much given up entirely with the TW series and came back here for a chuckle to see the herd buying yet again a distrustful product.
    My relationship with CA:
    broken promise of Empire total war multi-campaign -70
    180 hours RTW2 played: +100
    Unbalanced multiplayer units/roster variety for factions: -50
    Tons of playable factions: +25
    Series Loyalty: +15
    Free DLC: +10
    Historical Inacurracies: -25
    Pay for blood dlc: -5
    poor political AI: -75
    Gameplay issues: -50
    Preformance issues: -50
    Hype disappointment: -50
    At War (-225)
  • AkrotiriAkrotiri Senior Member Hellenic RepublicPosts: 873Registered Users
    edited March 2015
    So you gave up on the game but you still visit the forums? Sounds like you don't have much going on. I feel sorry for you.
    "Hence we will not say that Greeks fight like heroes, but that heroes fight like Greeks"
    -Winston Churchill , after the Greek victory against fascist Italy during WW2.
    explorechios.gr
  • CapfuzCapfuz Senior Member Posts: 172Registered Users
    edited March 2015
    You aren't forced to buy anything. Period. Stop telling other people how to spend their money.

    This thread should be deleted, not just locked.
    "Do not weep like a woman for what you could not defend like a man."
  • MadfortwMadfortw Senior Member Posts: 412Registered Users
    edited March 2015
    Capfuz wrote: »
    You aren't forced to buy anything. Period. Stop telling other people how to spend their money.

    This thread should be deleted, not just locked.

    Oh the irony in your comment. I really hope this wasn't a mistake.
  • MadfortwMadfortw Senior Member Posts: 412Registered Users
    edited March 2015
    xiosisland wrote: »
    So you gave up on the game but you still visit the forums? Sounds like you don't have much going on. I feel sorry for you.

    He wants to see improvements, he hopes for improvements on one of his fav games/series. You buy a product, you provide feedback. Company's rely on feedback like a pirate spends his life searching for treasure.

    Think.
  • Yi Song-GyeYi Song-Gye Senior Member Posts: 626Registered Users
    edited March 2015
    oh kingthrall BEST SIGNATURE EVER :D:D:D

    now on topic... Why is everybody so upset about 3 dlcs? See it positiv. It are just 3 dlcs roughly about 1 month after realese, DOW2 has 22^^
  • CapfuzCapfuz Senior Member Posts: 172Registered Users
    edited March 2015
    Madfortw wrote: »
    Oh the irony in your comment. I really hope this wasn't a mistake.

    What do you mean? If he doesn't want all these little DLCs... then don't purchase them. Why is he telling other people not to buy things? You're acting like there is some major lack of content.

    I have seen so many people complaining about every little thing since I joined this forum. Do you guys have any idea the kind of DLC madness and horrible business practices that are going on by other gaming companies? CA is amazing. Look at Rockstar for one example, they literally said before the launch of GTAV that heists gamemode would be in-game a month or two after release. People bought the game expecting that. Guess what? Heists ended up launching 540 ******g days after launch! Another example, Daybreak Studios has decided to charge a monthly subscription of $6.99 for a single gamemode in their survival game, it's ridiculous. Stop complaining about the DLC policies of SEGA and just enjoy an amazing strategy game being developed by an awesome developer.

    These DLC releases pale in comparison to things going on in other game series and especially on consoles.
    "Do not weep like a woman for what you could not defend like a man."
  • Ragnar LothbrokRagnar Lothbrok Senior Member Posts: 799Registered Users
    edited March 2015
    I've bought the Celt DLC because of Scottish style tribes. I will say though those of you that obviously are cool with everything SEGA/CA do which is fine with me, tis your life. When you moan/whine as much as the complainers do towards people on these forums calling for threads to be locked/banned though...I mean you say don't buy the game/dlc if you don't want it? Why bother commenting on them at all, are the threads so much of a eyesore for you? Skip over the ones you don't want to read, forums are for debate no? There is two extremes on here all the time, neither are better than the other. If a thread is closed fine but please god I hope that it isn't because you don't want to have to click on a thread that is negative, read comments and then voice your disgust at said thread..jeez and you say those people are sad and belittle them for making negative statements. I mean no disrespect by that but still.
  • bol14bol14 Senior Member USAPosts: 825Registered Users
    edited March 2015
    Knez Filip wrote: »
    So Alamans who are the ancestors of today Germans are not important (French for example call Germany Allemagne), or Langobards from who northern Italy today is called Lombardia, and who had important role later in history or celtic tribes in Britain and Ireland, ancestors of modern Irish and Scottish people, which are maybe your ancestor who settled in America latter. Nordic factions except Jutes are not important for this time period. And i wont talk about Slavs because they are still not made properly in to the game.

    Nope nine of those factions were advertised as being in the gane and are just extras. Get over yourself and your entitled attitude
  • bol14bol14 Senior Member USAPosts: 825Registered Users
    edited March 2015
    Madfortw wrote: »
    He wants to see improvements, he hopes for improvements on one of his fav games/series. You buy a product, you provide feedback. Company's rely on feedback like a pirate spends his life searching for treasure.

    Think.
    to

    None of this is feedback
  • Hidden GunmanHidden Gunman Moderator Posts: 4,606Moderators
    edited March 2015
    Closed and buried...
    Yes, it's me.

    Gungho |Takeda| Yamagato Masakage

    You have spoken with clarity of thought and rhetorical flourish...you have surely earned the favour of the mods.

    If you didn't, click here...
This discussion has been closed.