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

Glorified expansion to take more of our money nonsense

13»

Comments

  • Commissar_G#7535Commissar_G#7535 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 15,864
    Tayvar said:

    Maybe calling it Total War: Warhammer 2 was not the best decision, as it's annoyed some historical fanatics, but the price is fair, as a single race dlc tend to cost more if anything.

    Who cares about those people that just bleet like goats every time CA does anything other than announce medieval 3?
    MarcusLivius: You are indeed a lord of entitlement.
  • Blackw3Blackw3 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 161
    I for one don't really care what its called or how its marketed. I realize there are a lot of people on these forums from all walks of life, different ages, with different financial situations. But PC games have been hovering around the $60 mark for a long time and video game developers are not immune to inflation. If there was a comparable game out there, and the developer of that game offered it at a better price, you would most likely be playing that game.

    A lot of people hate DLC's and see it as a way for developers to scrape more money out of their fans. I personally see it as the saving grace for the types of game I like to play. Its done, because it has to be done to stay competitive with the like of mobile games and MOBA games, which people spend an obscene amount of money. Opinion obviously, but I'm pretty confident its true. Just look at Age of Empires. Very successful, well received, well loved game. Why has it been dead for 10 years? And look at something like Mobile Strike or Clash of Clans. There are people who spends thousands a month, LITERALLY thousands. Or look at games like League or Legends. People spend $5-$15 for a new skin and some effects for a champion, that adds literally nothing to the game except a new skin. Now I'm obviously not saying spending that kind of money to paying $60 is the same thing, I'm just saying those developers have the potential for those kinds of profits. And while its a different type of game, that attracts different customers, its still a video game. Which means they can draw in more of the talent pool. Pay for the crazy marketing (Superbowl ads for instance).

    I like that these types of games and I like how involved and engrossed the community is. I like the interaction, the love, the input. And no matter what you do, you cannot please everyone, so this is never going to end. But bottom line is, the choice is yours to make ultimately and only yours. When you bought the first game, you knew the 4 factions you were getting and the map you were getting. You also knew it was part of a trilogy. So call it an expansion, or a glorified DLC, or a scam, or a rip off. The reason its not any of those things is because on September 28th, I can buy Warhammer 2 and play it without buying anything else. Its that simple. Its stand alone game. What happened up to that point is irrelevant. If I never bought Total Warhammer because my PC sucked, or I wasn't convinced it was worth my money, I don't need to buy it on September 28th either. Yes, you get a combined map, but again, that has always been out in the open and been clearly expressed from the very beginning, long before you spent a dime.

    I'm sure this will get some backlash, but its mainly for those that can maybe look at this from a point of view of knowing, its simpley arket forces taking their toll on the games we like to play. Not an evil corp out to steal your lunch money.

  • Valkaar#2507Valkaar#2507 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 5,870
    Prkl8r said:

    Meh, this is all the same stuff people said about how they split SC2 into 3 games, but people still bought it.

    See...that example right there is what irks me. It's definitive proof that it's all just a min/maxing game..."how much money can we rip from the consumer"...nothing to do with effort or development cost.

    First game was full price. Second game was an expansion! It was called an expansion, priced $40 like an expansion.

    Then game 3 was called a sequel, priced like a $60 sequel.

    Except game 2 and 3 were identical. They added the EXACT same level of content over game 1, took the same work to make.

    It was literally just some suit deciding how much they thought they could make.

    I mean yeah, I bought and enjoyed all 3. But it still never feels good to know explicitly that you're being taken advantage of in that way.

    For Total War....yeah, it's expansion level content. But then again, CA is adding way more to their expansion than Blizzard ever added to theirs. And just like Starcraft, I'm sure I'll get my money's worth.

    Basically, it's a frustrating state of the entire industry. But as far as the industry goes, CA handles it better than most, and as long as the game has hundreds of hours built in, it doesn't bother me enough to boycott or delay a purchase. Does still bother me a little though. And I think players have a right to express that it bothers them provided they don't get too dramatic about it.
  • Xenos777Xenos777 Registered Users Posts: 8,038
    Valkaar said:

    Prkl8r said:

    Meh, this is all the same stuff people said about how they split SC2 into 3 games, but people still bought it.

    See...that example right there is what irks me. It's definitive proof that it's all just a min/maxing game..."how much money can we rip from the consumer"...nothing to do with effort or development cost.

    First game was full price. Second game was an expansion! It was called an expansion, priced $40 like an expansion.

    Then game 3 was called a sequel, priced like a $60 sequel.

    Except game 2 and 3 were identical. They added the EXACT same level of content over game 1, took the same work to make.

    It was literally just some suit deciding how much they thought they could make.

    I mean yeah, I bought and enjoyed all 3. But it still never feels good to know explicitly that you're being taken advantage of in that way.

    For Total War....yeah, it's expansion level content. But then again, CA is adding way more to their expansion than Blizzard ever added to theirs. And just like Starcraft, I'm sure I'll get my money's worth.

    Basically, it's a frustrating state of the entire industry. But as far as the industry goes, CA handles it better than most, and as long as the game has hundreds of hours built in, it doesn't bother me enough to boycott or delay a purchase. Does still bother me a little though. And I think players have a right to express that it bothers them provided they don't get too dramatic about it.
    The Starcraft II trilogy had three times the content of the original Starcraft. Just count the missions, without even looking at all the additional mechanics. So, if it had three times the content, it costed three times as much. This isn't a scheme, this is common sense.
  • Valkaar#2507Valkaar#2507 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 5,870
    Xenos7 said:

    Valkaar said:

    Prkl8r said:

    Meh, this is all the same stuff people said about how they split SC2 into 3 games, but people still bought it.

    See...that example right there is what irks me. It's definitive proof that it's all just a min/maxing game..."how much money can we rip from the consumer"...nothing to do with effort or development cost.

    First game was full price. Second game was an expansion! It was called an expansion, priced $40 like an expansion.

    Then game 3 was called a sequel, priced like a $60 sequel.

    Except game 2 and 3 were identical. They added the EXACT same level of content over game 1, took the same work to make.

    It was literally just some suit deciding how much they thought they could make.

    I mean yeah, I bought and enjoyed all 3. But it still never feels good to know explicitly that you're being taken advantage of in that way.

    For Total War....yeah, it's expansion level content. But then again, CA is adding way more to their expansion than Blizzard ever added to theirs. And just like Starcraft, I'm sure I'll get my money's worth.

    Basically, it's a frustrating state of the entire industry. But as far as the industry goes, CA handles it better than most, and as long as the game has hundreds of hours built in, it doesn't bother me enough to boycott or delay a purchase. Does still bother me a little though. And I think players have a right to express that it bothers them provided they don't get too dramatic about it.
    The Starcraft II trilogy had three times the content of the original Starcraft. Just count the missions, without even looking at all the additional mechanics. So, if it had three times the content, it costed three times as much. This isn't a scheme, this is common sense.
    You don't understand. I'm talking about within the trilogy itself.

    Starcraft 1 and Starcraft 2 were obviously different prices, they were over a decade apart. Games in general went from $20 to $60 during that time and can't be easily compared.

    What I mean is, within SC2 alone, Wings of Liberty was $60. Made sense. It was the first game. Heart of the Swarm was $40. Made sense. It was an expansion. Legacy of the Void was $60.....made people angry.

    It was no different than Heart of the Swarm. It added the EXACT same amount of content and took a similar length of time to develop. Both Heart of the Swarm and Legacy of the Void were substantially smaller than Wings of Liberty. 20ish missions instead of 30ish. Each added only about a half dozen new units to the multiplayer, and each added a few new tilesets to the map pool.

    Heck, if anything, Legacy was even smaller than Heart in that it only had one pre rendered movie cinematic (something Blizzard is known for/people look forward to)...while Heart had 2.

    Basically, if Heart was an expansion (which it was) then Legacy should of have been too.

    The whole thing just stunk. It proved how developers (Or their publisher overlords) no longer have any real definition for expansion vs sequel. They have become little more than arbitrary terms to make an excuse for a money grab. Instead of a reflection of the amount of work put in.

    Again, while I do think Total Warhammer 2 is an expansion...it adds way more content to 1 than either Heart or Legacy added to Wings.

    So, as far as slimy corporate overlording goes, CA is absolutely better about how they handle their business.
  • BaronKlatz#7357BaronKlatz#7357 Registered Users Posts: 1,149
    edited September 2017
    Huh, never thought of it like that.

    Now I'm kinda glad I only bought the first starcraft2 game because it was Terran focused.(and of course the twelve year wait. "Coming soon" ha!)

    Tayvar said:

    Maybe calling it Total War: Warhammer 2 was not the best decision, as it's annoyed some historical fanatics, but the price is fair, as a single race dlc tend to cost more if anything.

    Who cares about those people that just bleet like goats every time CA does anything other than announce medieval 3?
    Indeed, they really don't create much sympathy for their complaints with how obnoxious they've been.

    At this point I wonder if a Medieval 3 would even truly calm them down?
  • DeuzerreDeuzerre Member Registered Users Posts: 939
    Technically, all work is supposed to be done to make money.

    So... Ok, what's wrong, OP? Not happy, don't pay, that's how capitalism works-ish.
  • Tibi088Tibi088 Registered Users Posts: 178
    Deuzerre said:

    Technically, all work is supposed to be done to make money.

    So... Ok, what's wrong, OP? Not happy, don't pay, that's how capitalism works-ish.

    ...Have you read my post? Because if you have and wrote this than you have serious problems.

    Im very happy that CA handled game 2 as a separate game because if they didnt it would have cost me much more money to purchase the same amount of content - if it would have been even available. Whats wrong was that when I have made this thread i felt completly fed up after reading again a complaint that said that "CA made this glorified expansion a sequel to get us spend more money". If you read my OP than this should have been pretty evident.
  • Vanilla_Gorilla#8529Vanilla_Gorilla#8529 Registered Users Posts: 39,759

    Huh, never thought of it like that.

    Now I'm kinda glad I only bought the first starcraft2 game because it was Terran focused.(and of course the twelve year wait. "Coming soon" ha!)

    Tayvar said:

    Maybe calling it Total War: Warhammer 2 was not the best decision, as it's annoyed some historical fanatics, but the price is fair, as a single race dlc tend to cost more if anything.

    Who cares about those people that just bleet like goats every time CA does anything other than announce medieval 3?
    Indeed, they really don't create much sympathy for their complaints with how obnoxious they've been.

    At this point I wonder if a Medieval 3 would even truly calm them down?
    Wait, what was so good about ME2 to make them want ME3 so bad? I mean, it was a good game, but it wasn't anything spectacular.
    There are only two people better than me, and I'm both of them" - Vanilla Gorilla I am The Beast, Descendant of Guanyin, The one who beasts 25 hours a day, 8 days a week, The Vanilla Gorilla, The great bright delight, Conqueror of Mountains, Purveyor of wisdom, Official forum historian, Master Tamer of energy, the one they fear to name, Beastradamus, The Teacher, Master Unbiased Pollster, The Avatar of Tuesday, Chief hype Train Conductor, Uwu Usurper, Pog Wog Warrior, Poggers Patroller, Alpha of the species, Apex protector, Praetor of Positivity, Drybrush Disciple, Sophisticated Savage.
  • BaronKlatz#7357BaronKlatz#7357 Registered Users Posts: 1,149
    Well for one it's not "childish fairytale fantasy" for one. (Because conquering all of Europe and battling the Mongols with the Scots isn't fantasy because it takes place with a historical backdrop, somehow.. :p )

    Two I think is because they want all the improvements added to it that Shogun and Attila got while it got left in the dust as far as CA is concerned. (Certainly being apart of the Hyrule Total War mod has shown the mod restrictions to be enough to even cause a insanely devoted modder like Neph to give up on it)

    Though really I think it's the common fan case of "we want something new and exciting but make it like the older stuff we love and don't change anything".
  • GalenHHHGalenHHH Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,233
    Valkaar said:

    Xenos7 said:

    Valkaar said:

    Prkl8r said:

    Meh, this is all the same stuff people said about how they split SC2 into 3 games, but people still bought it.

    See...that example right there is what irks me. It's definitive proof that it's all just a min/maxing game..."how much money can we rip from the consumer"...nothing to do with effort or development cost.

    First game was full price. Second game was an expansion! It was called an expansion, priced $40 like an expansion.

    Then game 3 was called a sequel, priced like a $60 sequel.

    Except game 2 and 3 were identical. They added the EXACT same level of content over game 1, took the same work to make.

    It was literally just some suit deciding how much they thought they could make.

    I mean yeah, I bought and enjoyed all 3. But it still never feels good to know explicitly that you're being taken advantage of in that way.

    For Total War....yeah, it's expansion level content. But then again, CA is adding way more to their expansion than Blizzard ever added to theirs. And just like Starcraft, I'm sure I'll get my money's worth.

    Basically, it's a frustrating state of the entire industry. But as far as the industry goes, CA handles it better than most, and as long as the game has hundreds of hours built in, it doesn't bother me enough to boycott or delay a purchase. Does still bother me a little though. And I think players have a right to express that it bothers them provided they don't get too dramatic about it.
    The Starcraft II trilogy had three times the content of the original Starcraft. Just count the missions, without even looking at all the additional mechanics. So, if it had three times the content, it costed three times as much. This isn't a scheme, this is common sense.
    You don't understand. I'm talking about within the trilogy itself.

    Starcraft 1 and Starcraft 2 were obviously different prices, they were over a decade apart. Games in general went from $20 to $60 during that time and can't be easily compared.

    What I mean is, within SC2 alone, Wings of Liberty was $60. Made sense. It was the first game. Heart of the Swarm was $40. Made sense. It was an expansion. Legacy of the Void was $60.....made people angry.

    It was no different than Heart of the Swarm. It added the EXACT same amount of content and took a similar length of time to develop. Both Heart of the Swarm and Legacy of the Void were substantially smaller than Wings of Liberty. 20ish missions instead of 30ish. Each added only about a half dozen new units to the multiplayer, and each added a few new tilesets to the map pool.

    Heck, if anything, Legacy was even smaller than Heart in that it only had one pre rendered movie cinematic (something Blizzard is known for/people look forward to)...while Heart had 2.

    Basically, if Heart was an expansion (which it was) then Legacy should of have been too.

    The whole thing just stunk. It proved how developers (Or their publisher overlords) no longer have any real definition for expansion vs sequel. They have become little more than arbitrary terms to make an excuse for a money grab. Instead of a reflection of the amount of work put in.

    Again, while I do think Total Warhammer 2 is an expansion...it adds way more content to 1 than either Heart or Legacy added to Wings.

    So, as far as slimy corporate overlording goes, CA is absolutely better about how they handle their business.
    Wasnt LotV a standalone expansion while HotS required WoL to play?That could explain the diffrence ...
  • Valkaar#2507Valkaar#2507 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 5,870
    edited September 2017
    GalenHHH said:

    Valkaar said:

    Xenos7 said:

    Valkaar said:

    Prkl8r said:

    Meh, this is all the same stuff people said about how they split SC2 into 3 games, but people still bought it.

    See...that example right there is what irks me. It's definitive proof that it's all just a min/maxing game..."how much money can we rip from the consumer"...nothing to do with effort or development cost.

    First game was full price. Second game was an expansion! It was called an expansion, priced $40 like an expansion.

    Then game 3 was called a sequel, priced like a $60 sequel.

    Except game 2 and 3 were identical. They added the EXACT same level of content over game 1, took the same work to make.

    It was literally just some suit deciding how much they thought they could make.

    I mean yeah, I bought and enjoyed all 3. But it still never feels good to know explicitly that you're being taken advantage of in that way.

    For Total War....yeah, it's expansion level content. But then again, CA is adding way more to their expansion than Blizzard ever added to theirs. And just like Starcraft, I'm sure I'll get my money's worth.

    Basically, it's a frustrating state of the entire industry. But as far as the industry goes, CA handles it better than most, and as long as the game has hundreds of hours built in, it doesn't bother me enough to boycott or delay a purchase. Does still bother me a little though. And I think players have a right to express that it bothers them provided they don't get too dramatic about it.
    The Starcraft II trilogy had three times the content of the original Starcraft. Just count the missions, without even looking at all the additional mechanics. So, if it had three times the content, it costed three times as much. This isn't a scheme, this is common sense.
    You don't understand. I'm talking about within the trilogy itself.

    Starcraft 1 and Starcraft 2 were obviously different prices, they were over a decade apart. Games in general went from $20 to $60 during that time and can't be easily compared.

    What I mean is, within SC2 alone, Wings of Liberty was $60. Made sense. It was the first game. Heart of the Swarm was $40. Made sense. It was an expansion. Legacy of the Void was $60.....made people angry.

    It was no different than Heart of the Swarm. It added the EXACT same amount of content and took a similar length of time to develop. Both Heart of the Swarm and Legacy of the Void were substantially smaller than Wings of Liberty. 20ish missions instead of 30ish. Each added only about a half dozen new units to the multiplayer, and each added a few new tilesets to the map pool.

    Heck, if anything, Legacy was even smaller than Heart in that it only had one pre rendered movie cinematic (something Blizzard is known for/people look forward to)...while Heart had 2.

    Basically, if Heart was an expansion (which it was) then Legacy should of have been too.

    The whole thing just stunk. It proved how developers (Or their publisher overlords) no longer have any real definition for expansion vs sequel. They have become little more than arbitrary terms to make an excuse for a money grab. Instead of a reflection of the amount of work put in.

    Again, while I do think Total Warhammer 2 is an expansion...it adds way more content to 1 than either Heart or Legacy added to Wings.

    So, as far as slimy corporate overlording goes, CA is absolutely better about how they handle their business.
    Wasnt LotV a standalone expansion while HotS required WoL to play?That could explain the diffrence ...
    The artificially making one "standalone" so they could charge more for it was the problem itself. Not the explanation of the problem. There was no technical or programming based reason why one needed to be standalone versus the other. It was a marketing/sales gimmick. Not a technological hurdle.

    It was even more transparent because of the party "spawning" feature for multiplayer. If you had a friend who had any previous version of Starcraft 2, and you owned a newer version than they did...you could "spawn" them up to your version, so you guys could play together on the same version.

    So if one player had Wings, and one had Heart, as long as they were in a party together, they could both play Heart.

    This feature remained fully functional when Legacy came out. If one had Wings or Heart, and the other had Legacy....you could still spawn the Wings/Heart player into Legacy.

    If there actually was some "code" or whatever, that forced Legacy to be a standalone game....that type of "spawning" shouldn't have been possible.

    As a side note...I actually liked the "spawning" feature as a whole. You still needed to buy the game in order to access the 1 vs 1 ladder and single player campaigns. So not only did it make playing with friends easier, but it probably sold them extra copies, as players who were 'on the fence' could decide to purchase after they liked what they saw in a "spawned" session. So yeah...that's at least one angle of the thing where I think CA could actually take a leaf from Blizzard's book.
    Post edited by Valkaar#2507 on
  • Secuter#4520Secuter#4520 Senior Member Denmark, Aarhus.Registered Users Posts: 2,394
    As it can be played without the first game it is a game in its own right. If you were obliged to have the first game to play it, then it would be an expansion I guess.
  • Lord_XelosLord_Xelos Registered Users Posts: 1,806
    Secuter said:

    As it can be played without the first game it is a game in its own right. If you were obliged to have the first game to play it, then it would be an expansion I guess.

    That's what "standalone expansion" term or "expandalone" in short was created in the first place. And WH2 is exactly that. I quoted definition so many times that I'm not gonna bother to do it again. Google "expansion pack wikipedia" and You'll get it in second paragraph or so...
  • Galvinized_IronGalvinized_Iron Registered Users Posts: 1,025
    It is an expansion just like Viking Invasion for MTW and Barbarian Invasion for RTW. And just like those full price expansions it is probably worth it.
  • Valkaar#2507Valkaar#2507 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 5,870
    edited September 2017

    It is an expansion just like Viking Invasion for MTW and Barbarian Invasion for RTW. And just like those full price expansions it is probably worth it.

    I do think it's worth it in either case considering hours played...but barbarian invasion was not full price. It's price was less at release to reflect its expansion status.

    So was Viking invasion iirc, but I never played that one, so I'm not 100% sure.

    Sadly, CA has abandoned the practice of pricing or titling expansions appropriately ever since Napoleon.

    But then again, so has pretty much every other gaming company in every genre :-(

    At least, as you said, most of CA's expansions are still worth their inflated prices.
  • Galvinized_IronGalvinized_Iron Registered Users Posts: 1,025
    Valkaar said:

    It is an expansion just like Viking Invasion for MTW and Barbarian Invasion for RTW. And just like those full price expansions it is probably worth it.

    I do think it's worth it in either case considering hours played...but barbarian invasion was not full price. It's price was less at release to reflect its expansion status.

    So was Viking invasion iirc, but I never played that one, so I'm not 100% sure.

    Sadly, CA has abandoned the practice of pricing or titling expansions appropriately ever since Napoleon.

    But then again, so has pretty much every other gaming company in every genre :-(

    At least, as you said, most of CA's expansions are still worth their inflated prices.
    Well there is a reason why I didn't mention Alexander. It was fun, but really early DLC priced like an expansion.

    As for Barbarian invasion I think it was at least 75% of the main game price, maybe it varied
  • Valeli#5924Valeli#5924 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,130
    edited September 2017
    Well. It is a "just" a glorified expansion if you're using the term glorified very liberally. And I absolutely positively guarantee you that Sega and CA are in the business of publishing games in order to get our money, and not as a pro bono service to the community.

    So nothing about these complaints is really that off besides the tone of the people complaining.

    That said, tons of dev time has gone into making a quality product in order for them to get our money. It's not like a little DLC that "should cost 8 dollars but is priced at 60". It's like an enormous expansion that should cost more or less what it does.

    I'm cool with that.

    It is admittedly a bit more expensive that large-scale expansions used to be. I'm not a huge fan of that, but it does seem to be the industry-wide trend these days, and one can't really blame CA and Sega for going along with it. (One could also argue that this game has more unique models and animations than previous games... I'll leave it to others to make those arguments).

    Who cares about those people that just bleet like goats every time CA does anything other than announce medieval 3?

    @Commissar_G If you think we're bad now, just wait until Medieval 3 /is/ announced, and we're all morbidly dissapointed at how different it is in every way other than graphical upgrades...
  • AdamYahyaAdamYahya Senior Member Kuala LumpurRegistered Users Posts: 3,318

    It is an expansion just like Viking Invasion for MTW and Barbarian Invasion for RTW. And just like those full price expansions it is probably worth it.

    Not actually. VI, BI and Alexander are expansions which requires the base game to be played. Using current pricing for example, if I wanted to play just BI or just Alexander, I have to pay 40 for the expansion plus 60 for the base game even if am not interested at all with RTW.

    With Warhammer, or even NTW, FotS, Attila and TWWH2, I do not have to pay for the original game, in this case ETW, Shogun 2 and Rome 2 to be able to purchase and play the expansions.

    If TWWH2 is build and priced like MTW or RTW expansions, then one will have to pay 40 for the expansion just to play HE or DE and also to pay 60 for the base game (TWWH1). So, from that point of view, TWWH2 ia actually cheaper as an own standalone rather than as a tradional expansion.
  • FloppingerFloppinger Registered Users Posts: 578
    edited September 2017
    LestaT said:


    If TWWH2 is build and priced like MTW or RTW expansions, then one will have to pay 40 for the expansion just to play HE or DE and also to pay 60 for the base game (TWWH1). So, from that point of view, TWWH2 ia actually cheaper as an own standalone rather than as a tradional expansion.

    Which is only true if you just want TW: WH2 and don´t care for the content that is barred behind the TW: WH1 purchase.

    I bought TW: WH1 on release so I definetly got my 60€ worth of game out of it but a newcomer to the series is actually looking at a 120€ price tag + game 1 DLC for the full experience. Though TW: WH1 might drop in price.

    Imo a 60€ price for TW: WH2 is fine, assuming similar amount of content as the first game had and no glaring issues. However, another 60€ + DLC costs just for the mega campaign and everything in it is not worth it imo.
    If TW: WH1 drops in price then yeah maybe.

    @topic

    TW: WH2 is a standalone game, not an expansion. I´d rather put forth the argument that TW: WH1 expands TW: WH2, not the other way around. If anything TW: WH1 is the 60€ expansion at this point.

    In conclusion, I´m fine with the price, though I wouldn´t buy TW: WH1 for 60€ anymore at this point.

    What rubs me the wrong way is the prospect of TW: WH1 being left in the state it´s currently in and no longer receiving any patches. Not saying that´s 100% what´s gonna happen but it wouldn´t surprise me and that concerns me. And the whole marketing BS of multiple games combining into a big mega game, which isn´t actually the case.
  • Vanilla_Gorilla#8529Vanilla_Gorilla#8529 Registered Users Posts: 39,759
    No, a newcomer is looking at just buying game 2. The only thing they're missing out on if they buy TWW2 is the grand campaign, that's all. Saying one must buy both is like saying one must buy both Rome and Rome 2 because both are awesome.
    There are only two people better than me, and I'm both of them" - Vanilla Gorilla I am The Beast, Descendant of Guanyin, The one who beasts 25 hours a day, 8 days a week, The Vanilla Gorilla, The great bright delight, Conqueror of Mountains, Purveyor of wisdom, Official forum historian, Master Tamer of energy, the one they fear to name, Beastradamus, The Teacher, Master Unbiased Pollster, The Avatar of Tuesday, Chief hype Train Conductor, Uwu Usurper, Pog Wog Warrior, Poggers Patroller, Alpha of the species, Apex protector, Praetor of Positivity, Drybrush Disciple, Sophisticated Savage.
  • RodentofDoom#1703RodentofDoom#1703 Registered Users Posts: 588
    Some people just like to complain.



    They don't need things like logic, facts & common sense getting in the way.
  • FloppingerFloppinger Registered Users Posts: 578

    No, a newcomer is looking at just buying game 2. The only thing they're missing out on if they buy TWW2 is the grand campaign, that's all. Saying one must buy both is like saying one must buy both Rome and Rome 2 because both are awesome.

    Buying Rome doesn´t unlock any content in Rome 2 so your comparison is lacking. All I´ve said as that you have to buy both to get the full experience, everything the game has to offer. And that I don´t think it´s worth another 60€ (or more if you want DLC races aswell) on top of the 60€ that TW: WH2 already costs to do so for a newcomer to the series.

    While I do think TW: WH2 will be worth a full price game even without mega campaign, saying "The only thing they´re missing out on....." by not getting TW: WH1 aswell is playing it down a bit when to a lot of people the mega campaign is more important than the vortex campaign.
  • Nopeacejustwar#3336Nopeacejustwar#3336 Registered Users Posts: 1,382
    If they don't like it, don't buy it. Simple! People like to complain and when there's nothing wrong they make stuff up that might be wrong such as; Stuff being overpowered or underpowered and Faction A,B or C was given no love. They have to make money. should they just give it away!
  • Valeli#5924Valeli#5924 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,130
    edited September 2017

    Saying one must buy both is like saying one must buy both Rome and Rome 2 because both are awesome.

    While I broadly agree with you, I wouldn't go quite that far.

    Unlike the Rome comparison, several people here are buying it in order to get a digital recreation of the warhammer world that used to be. And in order to achieve that goal (ie: get a world where the races and geography is all acounted for) one really does need to purchase the games.

    A more apt comparison would have been a rome 2 where the Selucids/Egyptions/Macedonians and everyone to their east weren't included in the original purchase. The original purchase might have been a fine game, and you might have been able to design a wonderful second game based around those near/far east empires.

    But something would have been very missing in the Roman world if you were playing without them, don't you think?

    I mean, you could totally do that (Caesaer in Gaul and Hanibal at the Gates basically were that - DLC focused on the western Roman Empire). But I think that just strengthens the case that looking at it piece-meal is more like an expansion/DLC than a stand alone game. Even if the game (obviously) is actually stand-alone in the case of WH1/2/3.

    All this said, again, I do more or less agree with you and the OP that the price of WH2 is reasonable enough. It's a big complicated game, and not just a "pick up more races" pack.

    People like to complain and when there's nothing wrong they make stuff up that might be wrong such as; Stuff being overpowered or underpowered

    @Nopeacejustwar To be fair, sometimes those power level complaints are actually very grounded in reality, and lead to patches I would argue leave us with an unambiguously better game. (Of course, sometimes people are just complaining to complain as well.)
  • HexiHexi Registered Users Posts: 1,110
    edited September 2017
    If you think it's worth the money, buy it. If you don't think it's worth the money, then don't buy it.

    Why are so many people so upset about what other people think? Is your life not complete if someone on the internet doesn't agree with you?

    I didn't buy the first game until it was on sale due to their Chaos DLC decision. Do you think anyone cares?
    There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt
  • KGpoopyKGpoopy Registered Users Posts: 2,009
    After all the concerns and complaints it better be more than an expansion. I don't know why people are still saying it, but I guess standards are high.
  • dge1dge1 Moderator Arkansas, USARegistered Users, Moderators, Knights Posts: 23,787
    Essentially a business discussion, with some ranting.

    Moved to Chat.
    "The two most common things in the universe are Hydrogen and Stupidity." - Harlan Ellison
    "The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously." - Hubert H. Humphrey
    "Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin/Mark Twain
    “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”–George Santayana, The Life of Reason, 1905.

Sign In or Register to comment.