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

Blood Dlc Discussion

HaskolHaskol Registered Users Posts: 2
I know, at least from what I see on the reviews for blood dlc, that it is not very popular. I for one am in favor for blood dlc it has been pointed out for me and ill point it out for others that the dlc allows for the main game to be a lower age rating which is smart on their behalf. Here comes the part I don't agree with is the price for the dlc I think 3 dollars is a bit expensive and off putting for people to buy, I personally would actually buy blood dlc if it were around the price of Shoguns 2 blood dlc which was 1.60$. now a 1.40$ change in price might not seem like a lot and it isn't but it really is off putting to pay 3 dollars for something that generally you don't have to pay for, and already they benefit from it not being in the base game. one more point that I would like to include is the thought of adding more in the dlc then just blood maybe some extra units or something i believe that they did that in warhammer i'm not 100% on that but that would be cool for future games. they probably have it figured out that 3 dollars is the max amount of money they will get for how many people buy it vs 1.60 but it would make for a happier fan base and possibly more money intake

That's the end of my rant, my question for you is what are your thoughts and opinions? what do you think total war could do to make people happy with blood dlc?

Comments

  • AlandauronAlandauron Registered Users Posts: 8
    The same could be argued about all dlc, lowering the price will end up getting more to make the purchase, or at least make the purchase at full price instead of waiting a year or 2 for sales that bring the prices down to reasonable. Sadly they know they will get money, especially with Total War games, no matter what price they attach to it.

    For the record, no it has nothing to do with the game costing more and they need to charge these amounts for dlc. That is a myth that companies allow you to believe in order to line their pockets. With the ability to reach a much wider market and the inclusion of digital sales companies make far more money than they used to, even including the marketing game companies make their money back and then some just off initial game sales. Selling gore as an addon doesn't surprise me at all with Total War considering they charge $8 to unlock the ability for the player to use content already in the game. The coding required for that is not much when you already have the systems in place.

    Charging for gore....the more I learn about the Total War franchise the more it turns me off to their games. If it weren't so obviously greedy I wouldn't have any issues though, $1 in order to lock away some content for a rating...I guess I could understand that but there's other ways to do that like making it available only if you have a verified account or some such.
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 24,666

    The same could be argued about all dlc, lowering the price will end up getting more to make the purchase, or at least make the purchase at full price instead of waiting a year or 2 for sales that bring the prices down to reasonable. Sadly they know they will get money, especially with Total War games, no matter what price they attach to it.

    For the record, no it has nothing to do with the game costing more and they need to charge these amounts for dlc. That is a myth that companies allow you to believe in order to line their pockets. With the ability to reach a much wider market and the inclusion of digital sales companies make far more money than they used to, even including the marketing game companies make their money back and then some just off initial game sales. Selling gore as an addon doesn't surprise me at all with Total War considering they charge $8 to unlock the ability for the player to use content already in the game. The coding required for that is not much when you already have the systems in place.

    Charging for gore....the more I learn about the Total War franchise the more it turns me off to their games. If it weren't so obviously greedy I wouldn't have any issues though, $1 in order to lock away some content for a rating...I guess I could understand that but there's other ways to do that like making it available only if you have a verified account or some such.

    Please show me your market research and cost calculations enabling you to make absolutist statements like that. Your gut ain't convincing me.

  • AlandauronAlandauron Registered Users Posts: 8

    Please show me your market research and cost calculations enabling you to make absolutist statements like that. Your gut ain't convincing me.

    Please show me yours that say it isn't, you can't. They purposely keep as much hidden as possible, but I'll throw you a bone.

    Destiny was a brand new game with a brand new game engine, the developers said that, upon launch, they had spent nowhere near 100 million on the game. It was also reported that the cost of the first iteration was 150 million, that was including marketing expenses. The game made 500 million in sales of the original game alone. Now it can be reasonably assumed that dlc for a game that already has a core will cost significantly less to add onto, so pitching all the $20 and $30 dlcs out, even if to half the people that bought the base game, will yield a tremendous profit. Stay as sheltered as you wish but try not to assault others without any basis of your own for an argument.
  • SiWISiWI Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 10,911
    your argument, you need to back it up...
    Ratling_Guns.gif?t=1554385892
  • NobleGunnerNobleGunner Registered Users Posts: 739
    Haskol said:

    I know, at least from what I see on the reviews for blood dlc, that it is not very popular. I for one am in favor for blood dlc it has been pointed out for me and ill point it out for others that the dlc allows for the main game to be a lower age rating which is smart on their behalf. Here comes the part I don't agree with is the price for the dlc I think 3 dollars is a bit expensive and off putting for people to buy, I personally would actually buy blood dlc if it were around the price of Shoguns 2 blood dlc which was 1.60$. now a 1.40$ change in price might not seem like a lot and it isn't but it really is off putting to pay 3 dollars for something that generally you don't have to pay for, and already they benefit from it not being in the base game. one more point that I would like to include is the thought of adding more in the dlc then just blood maybe some extra units or something i believe that they did that in warhammer i'm not 100% on that but that would be cool for future games. they probably have it figured out that 3 dollars is the max amount of money they will get for how many people buy it vs 1.60 but it would make for a happier fan base and possibly more money intake

    That's the end of my rant, my question for you is what are your thoughts and opinions? what do you think total war could do to make people happy with blood dlc?

    Mate if 3 dollars is expensive... I dunno what sort of job if any you are working.
  • AlandauronAlandauron Registered Users Posts: 8

    Mate if 3 dollars is expensive... I dunno what sort of job if any you are working.

    Comments like this are honestly the worst, it's obvious trolling but I'll take the bait. It's not about the fact that $3 is expensive, it's about what the $3 is spent on and how it compares to the competition in it's own field.

    For a coffee drinker spending $5+ on a Starbucks coffee is perfectly justified because it is part of their lifestyle, for someone that might prefer sodas though that price is completely ridiculous cause why not just buy a soda for $2 or even an energy drink for $3.

    It's all relative to a person's feeling on what something is worth. If you don't care about anything but Total War games then yea, you'll buy everything at full price and not bat an eye but if you enjoy other games in the same genre and those games actually give a decent amount of content(or even the same amount) for a smaller price point then you're gonna see a problem with charging $3 for something that most other similar games just include as an option with the base game.

    Try not to respond so toxic, I love the old rule, "If you don't have anything nice to say then keep your g****mn mouth shut!" My Grandmother might have been a bit more vulgar than most with that saying ;).
  • AlandauronAlandauron Registered Users Posts: 8
    SiWI said:

    your argument, you need to back it up...

    If you're talking to me then I did, if the OP then they were asking a question.
  • SiWISiWI Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 10,911

    SiWI said:

    your argument, you need to back it up...

    If you're talking to me then I did, if the OP then they were asking a question.
    you did complain to Ephraim_Dalton, that he should back up his claims, instead of backing up yours.

    i pointed out, that you were the one to make such claims in the first place. And no didn't really back anything up...
    you played the same numbers games/claims of before in another dress up.

    I could also make the claim that more people would buy blood DLC, if it would be more expensive.
    Making the "logical argument" that if its more expensive it is a more prestige item and hence more people want to have it (works actually in the perfume business).

    And it is not his job to research your arguments.

    Besides that you yourself just have shown that a coffee, a consumed item which maybe last for 15 minutes, is suppose to be worth 3 dollars, but a upgraded of TW looks, a product that last hundreds of hours , is supposedly isn't.

    That is the most artificial reasoning I have seen in a long time...

    Ratling_Guns.gif?t=1554385892
  • AlandauronAlandauron Registered Users Posts: 8
    SiWI said:

    you did complain to Ephraim_Dalton, that he should back up his claims, instead of backing up yours.

    A certain level of common sense applies, but I love the use of the word "complain" when all I did was "state" that he can't provide evidence that companies require dlc to earn back their expenses because of the simple fact that game companies keep that information as restricted as they possibly can. You're a troll but here's a bit of common sense for ya.

    If they need the dlc for additional income why do all CEOs and such make millions of dollars working for game companies? It's simple if you use some common sense, they don't need the dlc. They make a ton of profit and still would without the dlcs, just not quite as much since they can spend 100k on a dlc and make another easy million.
    SiWI said:

    i pointed out, that you were the one to make such claims in the first place. And no didn't really back anything up...

    I did back it up, not my fault if you don't like what I provided. But essentially you had no reason to post except to troll?
    SiWI said:

    I could also make the claim that more people would buy blood DLC, if it would be more expensive.
    Making the "logical argument" that if its more expensive it is a more prestige item and hence more people want to have it (works actually in the perfume business).

    Touche, though this being the gaming industry and the discussed dlc being gore and not a fancy or rare skin I would have to say that if they charged anymore than $3 no one would buy it. But this is the Total War franchise where everyone is used to this business model and you get attacked and trolled for criticizing I might be wrong.
    SiWI said:

    And it is not his job to research your arguments.

    And it's not my job to help others with common sense. I provided my argument with logical reasoning to back it up and even threw out the additional example, Destiny, proving that companies don't need dlc to turn a profit and that wasn't good enough for you. But I'll give what anyone can find:

    over 500,000 copies sold in the first few days
    over 1.7 million copies of the game sold


    Now lets use that to make some lowball estimates:
    -use $50 instead of $60 for the 500,000 copies = $25,000,000
    -use the 66% off sale for the other 1.2 million copies = $24,480,000
    -Lets say only 3.4 million dlc were sold and only the $8 ones = $27,200,000

    That's extremely lowballing it, and it comes out to $76,680,000. How much do you think development cost when they're using the same game engine [with upgrades] as recent TW titles? Destiny, which had a new engine created just for it, cost the devs "nowhere near $100 million". Honestly I doubt the cost for TW: W was even $20 million but the company doesn't release that information because they don't want gamers to know exactly how much they make with each new iteration of Total War.
    SiWI said:

    Besides that you yourself just have shown that a coffee, a consumed item which maybe last for 15 minutes, is suppose to be worth 3 dollars, but a upgraded of TW looks, a product that last hundreds of hours , is supposedly isn't.

    That is the most artificial reasoning I have seen in a long time...

    You can't compare beverages and such to games, you can only compare beverages to beverages and games to games. For this reason I compared a Starbucks drinker to someone that drinks sodas or energy drinks instead, cause that is a logical comparison.

    Games, before they were taken over by big business, used to have soul, developers used to pour their love into their games. Sure there were bad games but those games just didn't sell, now with big business involved you have good games that are just completely overpriced compared to what they could be priced at. If this money went to the developers then most people like me wouldn't have a problem, it doesn't though. Producers set a budget and developers work within that budget, everything over that goes to the producers and usually the pockets of the top brass.

    I'll end with this, if you notice most of my posts also include a simple, "if your lifestyle supports paying whatever is asked for something then disregard" or something along those lines. I want to share facts with those willing to hear them, the rumors that these companies need dlc to cover expenses is completely false. Every new game is a risk though, and sometimes games bomb but for the most part the publishers don't deal with games that bomb because even if the game isn't as great as claimed they have sold enough pre-orders to cover all expenses due to the marketing campaign they have poured into their new IP.

    Just a bit of knowledge, take it or leave it I don't really care, I just tend to respond to trolls because trolls entertain me.
  • SiWISiWI Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 10,911
    edited August 2017

    SiWI said:

    you did complain to Ephraim_Dalton, that he should back up his claims, instead of backing up yours.

    A certain level of common sense applies, but I love the use of the word "complain" when all I did was "state" that he can't provide evidence that companies require dlc to earn back their expenses because of the simple fact that game companies keep that information as restricted as they possibly can. You're a troll but here's a bit of common sense for ya.
    For someone "not complaining" you call anyone disagreeing with you a "troll".
    besides the point remains:
    you make claims for which you have not facts, but just "common sense".
    "Common sense" would tell us that the ploish never used armour with wings on it, since it is not practical in combat.
    How does releaity works? Different. Hence "common sense" (actually only a thing a what you feel logical) without facts IS worthless.

    If they need the dlc for additional income why do all CEOs and such make millions of dollars working for game companies?

    Because they would work for other companies if they weren't paid well?
    Sure you could find CEO's who work for far less, but then you shouldn't wonder that they don't have the same standards.

    Besides: who at CA gets "millions" of dollars?

    As for the secrete of companies:
    show me a business where it is common to explain that much of your operation so publicly. Its "common sense" not to explain to the whole world how you operate in detail.

    It's simple if you use some common sense, they don't need the dlc. They make a ton of profit and still would without the dlcs, just not quite as much since they can spend 100k on a dlc and make another easy million.

    Except that some profit isn't enough, if the competition is in danger to buy you.

    Besides that, all your complains are about basic market/capitalism. Never see a working alternative to those.

    I did back it up, not my fault if you don't like what I provided. But essentially you had no reason to post except to troll?

    Except you din't have any facts to back you claims up, but the same hot air you produce before.
    You may think that you can make your arguments value with just repeating your logic, but it isn't. You are eco chamber your own toughs and think that is prove enough for them in the first place.
    But it isn't.

    Touche, though this being the gaming industry and the discussed dlc being gore and not a fancy or rare skin I would have to say that if they charged anymore than $3 no one would buy it. But this is the Total War franchise where everyone is used to this business model and you get attacked and trolled for criticizing I might be wrong.

    For someone you "doesn't complain" you like complaining about being "trolled" don't you.
    And "attacked"? because people don't agree with you?
    You may think that you "on the consumers side" bit that doesn't entitle you to have all consumers support for your claims.
    But that is perhaps the problem when you think you have the righteous side and don't bother with facts anymore.


    And it's not my job to help others with common sense. I provided my argument with logical reasoning to back it up and even threw out the additional example, Destiny, proving that companies don't need dlc to turn a profit and that wasn't good enough for you. But I'll give what anyone can find:

    First of all:
    no backed up nothing.
    No facts, just a bunch of claims.
    Your are making claims, you provide the facts.

    over 500,000 copies sold in the first few days
    over 1.7 million copies of the game sold


    Now lets use that to make some lowball estimates:
    -use $50 instead of $60 for the 500,000 copies = $25,000,000
    -use the 66% off sale for the other 1.2 million copies = $24,480,000
    -Lets say only 3.4 million dlc were sold and only the $8 ones = $27,200,000

    That's extremely lowballing it, and it comes out to $76,680,000. How much do you think development cost when they're using the same game engine [with upgrades] as recent TW titles? Destiny, which had a new engine created just for it, cost the devs "nowhere near $100 million". Honestly I doubt the cost for TW: W was even $20 million but the company doesn't release that information because they don't want gamers to know exactly how much they make with each new iteration of Total War.

    Given that the destiny franchise (it was planed as such from the get go) had a budget of 500 mio., you didn't make actual money with 76mio. So much for your great example...
    And from what is Destiny 2 is suppose to pay itself? The "love" of the fandom?

    Also, does in your world WH not pay for all the other projects of CA?

    CA has right now 5 different teams and since only 2 of them are making money right now. All of them need to be paid full. What else would pay for those titles, if not the profit from the WH 1&2?


    SiWI said:

    Besides that you yourself just have shown that a coffee, a consumed item which maybe last for 15 minutes, is suppose to be worth 3 dollars, but a upgraded of TW looks, a product that last hundreds of hours , is supposedly isn't.

    That is the most artificial reasoning I have seen in a long time...

    You can't compare beverages and such to games, you can only compare beverages to beverages and games to games. For this reason I compared a Starbucks drinker to someone that drinks sodas or energy drinks instead, cause that is a logical comparison.

    I can compare products being sold for money and that is what I did.
    You just don't like this, since it clearly shows what a petty complain you have.
    You complain about 1-2 $ "too much" for a lasting product were they are tons of products you consume/throw away that cost more.

    "Common sense" says that it is nonsense to complain about that.
    Besides:
    you neither have to buy the dlc or TW, if you really think that he Blood DLC is costing too much.
    I for one didn't bought it, because I don't really care for blood and gore in games.

    Games, before they were taken over by big business, used to have soul, developers used to pour their love into their games.

    Oh the pink colored glasses are strong with this one...

    as is "good old times".

    Not only is there no evidence that actually proves any of this ("No man sky" did seem like a passion project), neither you claims about the past or present, but it is of course a fulfilling prophecy:
    you view everything in the past as made with "soul" and can forgive all the transaction of the past.
    you view everything today as made by "big business" and everything becomes a plot against you.

    Sure there were bad games but those games just didn't sell, now with big business involved you have good games that are just completely overpriced compared to what they could be priced at. If this money went to the developers then most people like me wouldn't have a problem, it doesn't though. Producers set a budget and developers work within that budget, everything over that goes to the producers and usually the pockets of the top brass.


    you should one day look up the term "inflation".
    And if you really think that the money in the pat didn't went to the "top brass", well I guess there is little point with argue with someone like you.

    I'll end with this, if you notice most of my posts also include a simple, "if your lifestyle supports paying whatever is asked for something then disregard" or something along those lines. I want to share facts with those willing to hear them, the rumors that these companies need dlc to cover expenses is completely false.

    What "facts" did you share?
    I see none.
    Only claim over claim over claim.
    Your last paragraphs were full of them.

    And you example rather backfired at you...
    Every new game is a risk though, and sometimes games bomb but for the most part the publishers don't deal with games that bomb because even if the game isn't as great as claimed they have sold enough pre-orders to cover all expenses due to the marketing campaign they have poured into their new IP.

    The makers and publishers of "rise of legends" would like to have a word with you.
    Besides:
    another set of claims.

    Just a bunch of claims that fit my world view, take it or leave it I don't really care, I just tend to respond to people that disagree with me and call them trolls, since I don't have facts on my side only my "common sense" aka feelings.

    I correct this one for you.

    Ratling_Guns.gif?t=1554385892
Sign In or Register to comment.