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

When CA tells me that they have 2 different teams but still WH2 DLC/FLC won't come shortly~

13

Comments

  • Xenos7Xenos7 Registered Users Posts: 5,229
    Nyxilis said:

    Let's have a little perspective here. WH2 is still one of CAs best selling titles even if less than one.

    Also one of the more costly to make. It's all about RoI.
  • Xenos7Xenos7 Registered Users Posts: 5,229
    edited June 2018
    SiWI said:


    that doesn't even remotely answer how you can maintain the claim that WH2 has supposedly "drastically reduce contend".

    Given that you don't attempt to defend it, I assume you admit that that claim is wrong.

    I didn't feel the need to defend anything because it's a fact that Warhammer 2 received way less content than the predecessor *in the same amount of time*. That obviously means it is receiving less resources and work. Sure, if they release one DLC per year for the next thirty years than it would end up with more content than any other TW game, but that means nothing in the context of this discussion.
  • SiWISiWI Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 10,618
    Xenos7 said:

    SiWI said:


    that doesn't even remotely answer how you can maintain the claim that WH2 has supposedly "drastically reduce contend".

    Given that you don't attempt to defend it, I assume you admit that that claim is wrong.

    I didn't feel the need to defend anything because it's a fact that Warhammer 2 received way less content than the predecessor *in the same amount of time*. That obviously means it is receiving less resources and work. Sure, if they release one DLC per year for the next thirty years than it would end up with more content than any other TW game, but that means nothing in the context of this discussion.
    that not only changes the statement, after the fact of course as exspected, but is as shown pretty meaningless.

    Norsca has caused delays and so has the fact that CA has 2 campaign to work for not just 1.



    But hwy I know you have deiced that WH 2 is already abandon by CA, so I won't try to disturb that with facts anymore.
    Ratling_Guns.gif?t=1554385892
  • Xenos7Xenos7 Registered Users Posts: 5,229
    SiWI said:

    Xenos7 said:

    SiWI said:


    that doesn't even remotely answer how you can maintain the claim that WH2 has supposedly "drastically reduce contend".

    Given that you don't attempt to defend it, I assume you admit that that claim is wrong.

    I didn't feel the need to defend anything because it's a fact that Warhammer 2 received way less content than the predecessor *in the same amount of time*. That obviously means it is receiving less resources and work. Sure, if they release one DLC per year for the next thirty years than it would end up with more content than any other TW game, but that means nothing in the context of this discussion.
    that not only changes the statement, after the fact of course as exspected, but is as shown pretty meaningless.

    Norsca has caused delays and so has the fact that CA has 2 campaign to work for not just 1.



    But hwy I know you have deiced that WH 2 is already abandon by CA, so I won't try to disturb that with facts anymore.
    Not abandoned. Just quite neglected. Everyone is free to make up his own mind by looking at what we got by now, and at what we haven't got.
  • CrossilCrossil Registered Users Posts: 5,956
    Sephlock said:

    Arsenic said:



    But I think people have a hard time believing in two entirely separate teams when Norsca took so very long at a time when Thrones of Britannia was being released, and work on Three Kingdoms ( due next year) somehow precludes Warhammer content within the next few months.

    Doesn't really sound like two separate teams in the way I'd understand it.

    Isn't it a bit more likely that they delayed it because they didn't want Norsca to hit at the same time as ToB, and likewise don't want Warhammer 2 DLC to steal the thunder of 3K?

    I get that a lot of people are only interested in WH2 (I'm one of them), but it doesn't seem unlikely that a marketing person would think that way.
    Unless they could add Norsca and QnC by March I highly doubt it. The only thing you can say is that their policy of updates with DLC was a problem but there is little to prove they could make both by March.

    In 8 months from release they made TK and QnC and reimplemented Norsca. 2 are major content and the last took a questioned amount of time. But what I find peculiar is how can a company which was developing Warhammer, ToB and 3 Kingdoms at the same time in the last 5 years apparently suddenly be incapable of only focusing on one game or the other. And even if the date was changed there's nothing to say they did nothing during that pause or that the staff were moved to ToB or 3K.

    There is nothing to say they took staff from one team to the other. There is an objective demonstrable problem with changing people from one project to the other willy-nilly. So development team couldn't be moved and having them sit and wait is just losing money. So what would they be doing than?

    The marketing thing is just an excuse that doesn't do anything for the two underlying problems. It assumes that the team was either moved or told to sit and wait. They couldn't be moved and having them waste time is senseless. So what were they doing? Norsca probably. No reason to think otherwise.
    UNLEASH THE EVERCHARIOT
  • dge1dge1 Moderator Arkansas, USARegistered Users, Moderators, Knights Posts: 19,148
    More posts removed. Last chance to keep the personal animosity and derogatory remarks out of the conversation.
    "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
  • Vanilla_GorillaVanilla_Gorilla Registered Users Posts: 17,667
    I think we were all rather spoiled with the TWW1 DLC schedule.

    The reality is this is one of CA's best selling games, the idea that they'd abandon it just doesn't resonate with common sense. It's simply shifted to having a DLC schedule more equivalent to other games.
    Game 3 must have variety in its core races. Ogres, Chaos Dwarfs, Kislev, and Demons of Chaos in its full iconic, glorious, undivided glory.
  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Registered Users Posts: 1,577
    It probably does not help that the marketing is high on fluff and low on substance. We don't know what is coming up and they think it's a really great idea to 'mystery box' it with just subtle hints, which we know from 'an old friend' are not worth a thing.

    It would to know how much more content will be released between now and game 3, some idea of what game 2 looks like when it finishes, whether they will be combining all three games into a single application like with S2 + FoTS and a rough idea of what the time-scale for that is. No, we can't have that, so here's another marketing gimmick.
  • ArsenicArsenic Registered Users Posts: 4,899
    Sephlock said:


    Isn't it a bit more likely that they delayed it because they didn't want Norsca to hit at the same time as ToB, and likewise don't want Warhammer 2 DLC to steal the thunder of 3K?

    I get that a lot of people are only interested in WH2 (I'm one of them), but it doesn't seem unlikely that a marketing person would think that way.


    Norsca was previously released content, and Three Kingdoms is out in Spring. That's over half a year from now.

    Making Norsca playable in ME wouldn't have drawn attention away from ToB, nor would WH2 content within the next few months affect Three Kingdoms some nine months away.

    Maybe it's just the way some of their comments have been phrased, but what we've heard recently, and the slow pace of stuff for WH2 doesn't really gel with there being two separate teams.

    But it could easily be people over-analysing a few offhand comments. Was never expecting as much content for TWW2 as TWW1, and have said so from the beginning, simply because there isn't the scope unless they get very, very creative.
    "Ours is a world of fleeting glory. But it is glory, nonetheless."
  • NyxilisNyxilis Registered Users Posts: 3,403
    Xenos7 said:

    Nyxilis said:

    Let's have a little perspective here. WH2 is still one of CAs best selling titles even if less than one.

    Also one of the more costly to make. It's all about RoI.
    Not really by that much. Warhammer II has some more money put into the races but a lot of the groundwork was already laid out by game 1. 2 improves some but not by great leaps other than army quality and quantity of roster. But we're not talking some great leap and Warhammer 1 was still designed to garner near what Total War games usually get. 1 & 2 are still well above that.

    Game 2 has been profitable, and quite happily for CA other than the public relation snafus.

    It's just the exciting part of their new project with game one is over. That they carefully left more schedule open to tinker on I think. And with game 2, they're back to trying to do historical titles and that has spread them a bit thin in volume. Even if not shoveling people on one projecct it's still ToB, 3k, ToB patch/blood, Rome II dlc, then another, and 3ks delay. Nor did the Norsca thing help any.

    But not once did this ever lead them to abandon an obviously still profitable line.
  • TennisgolfbollTennisgolfboll Registered Users Posts: 8,325
    Yeah they are clearly putting baby in the corner (warhammer).

    But if we get both Dogs of War and Araby then we have gotten alot for wh2 even if it took a long time.
    Read all my replies as if we are having a pint and a good old time. I will always read your reply like that.
  • uriakuriak Registered Users Posts: 3,421
    edited June 2018
    I don't see having two teams conflicting with the current schedule.

    Norsca aside - and it is not really aside - with each game they will face less starting players (I see more people not jumping on the warhammer bandwagon than people starting with a new installement, regardless of the content) and more content to maintain, and I say just maintain, not even update.

    By game 3, this will reach a difficulty peak : a "hard sell" of a game, followed by a lot of content to port then hopefully update. This may well be the less financially attractive of the three games, unless they have plans laters for "completion style" DLC after this one. DLC are for all intent "reaping the reward", ideally in a win win situation of us being happy with the current and future state of the game and them for the money.

    So far, what we have is coherent with 1 main team, 1 additionnal content team and... some people for fix/retroupdate. For warhammer alone.
    Everyone is entitled to their opinion : I don't think the content sped is too bad, but more effort should be done on maintenance, something that will only increase the more factions/campaigns/content there are. Simply because there is more stuff to break and more stuff to rebalance and update.

    There, in a ideal world these games have 5 times the sell volume and we have a 5 time larger manpower working on them. I kinda hoped for such a power rise with game 2-3, after the first game sucess, but it wasn't the case, at least in scope. Keeping in mind we are just speculating on processes and events we know almost nothing about.
  • PilthoidPilthoid Registered Users Posts: 203
    It take a while to do these things. We often make a common mistake by assuming all teams are working together or the members of those teams are able to do everything.

    You can imagine they have a team working on Araby for instance, and perhaps another working on the southern realms. Team Araby finishes and moves on ahead to the one after Southern Realms. At the same time a much smaller team works on free stuff to add as they go along.

    Its unrealistic to think that all team members can perform all tasks. They are typically specialized. It would be like going to wherever you work and getting angry because the people that work in the kitchen don't go out and fix the company truck. They're free right now aren't they?
  • psychoakpsychoak Registered Users Posts: 2,612
    So... the prediction is TEB, or some version of that, is the next DLC, which means, minimum, one full blown faction, and people go **** because it's confirmed not to be released in the two months following the last dlc, which was just patched a few days back, and honestly could use another...
  • ArsenicArsenic Registered Users Posts: 4,899
    psychoak said:

    So... the prediction is TEB, or some version of that, is the next DLC, which means, minimum, one full blown faction, and people go **** because it's confirmed not to be released in the two months following the last dlc, which was just patched a few days back, and honestly could use another...

    They've had five months, TQATC and finally implementing old content in ME isn't the most impressive of results for that time period. It's understandable people aren't impressed at the prospect of another lengthy wait.

    But no, think people are just looking at the glacial pace of releases for WH2, the other projects CA has on hand, and some comments that have been made, and saying it doesn't look like there are two entirely separate teams as was previously claimed.

    "Ours is a world of fleeting glory. But it is glory, nonetheless."
  • Commissar_GCommissar_G Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 10,255
    MrMecH said:

    Gotrek meme will continue until community destroyed.

    This should be your signature @Gotrek_Beastslayer
    "As a sandbox game everyone, without exception, should be able to play the game exactly as they see fit and that means providing the maximum scope possible." - ~UNiOnJaCk~
  • vintagepurplevintagepurple Registered Users Posts: 797
    edited June 2018
    Two entirely separate teams is absolutely not the case. People have specific jobs. Concept artists are not plugging away a month before release, nor do you need a battery of QA testers during pre-production. CA is not lying to you people and dude who quoted me, they did not deny switching people, they merely explained that moving people back to warhammer will not magically make dlc come faster. For example, some dude who did concept art for both Norsca and 3K would not have helped speed up Norsca. They did not need concept art.

    Still lolling at people angry they don't have enough dlc to buy.
  • Xenos7Xenos7 Registered Users Posts: 5,229
    Nyxilis said:



    Game 2 has been profitable, and quite happily for CA other than the public relation snafus.

    Sure, it has been profitable. If this wasn't the case we wouldn't even got the few things we got. Look at Mass Effect and Command & Conquer series: big publishers have no loyalty to brands, they will happily shut down anything which doesn't make money.

    It's just, not that profitable. So we are back to the quite tame DLC plan of a secondary product.
  • NyxilisNyxilis Registered Users Posts: 3,403
    Xenos7 said:

    Nyxilis said:



    Game 2 has been profitable, and quite happily for CA other than the public relation snafus.

    Sure, it has been profitable. If this wasn't the case we wouldn't even got the few things we got. Look at Mass Effect and Command & Conquer series: big publishers have no loyalty to brands, they will happily shut down anything which doesn't make money.

    It's just, not that profitable. So we are back to the quite tame DLC plan of a secondary product.
    Missing the point, I didn't ever say it was not profitable but still a mile over other CA titles. Which it is. So even less than 1, it still makes no sense given that it's still their second most profitable title.
  • Xenos7Xenos7 Registered Users Posts: 5,229
    Nyxilis said:

    Xenos7 said:

    Nyxilis said:



    Game 2 has been profitable, and quite happily for CA other than the public relation snafus.

    Sure, it has been profitable. If this wasn't the case we wouldn't even got the few things we got. Look at Mass Effect and Command & Conquer series: big publishers have no loyalty to brands, they will happily shut down anything which doesn't make money.

    It's just, not that profitable. So we are back to the quite tame DLC plan of a secondary product.
    Missing the point, I didn't ever say it was not profitable but still a mile over other CA titles. Which it is. So even less than 1, it still makes no sense given that it's still their second most profitable title.
    How are you making that calculation?
  • baronblackbaronblack Registered Users Posts: 3,202
    Xenos7 said:

    Nyxilis said:



    Game 2 has been profitable, and quite happily for CA other than the public relation snafus.

    Sure, it has been profitable. If this wasn't the case we wouldn't even got the few things we got. Look at Mass Effect and Command & Conquer series: big publishers have no loyalty to brands, they will happily shut down anything which doesn't make money.

    It's just, not that profitable. So we are back to the quite tame DLC plan of a secondary product.
    Another session of mind cleansing because of EA remembrances... thanks guys.
  • NyxilisNyxilis Registered Users Posts: 3,403
    Xenos7 said:

    Nyxilis said:

    Xenos7 said:

    Nyxilis said:



    Game 2 has been profitable, and quite happily for CA other than the public relation snafus.

    Sure, it has been profitable. If this wasn't the case we wouldn't even got the few things we got. Look at Mass Effect and Command & Conquer series: big publishers have no loyalty to brands, they will happily shut down anything which doesn't make money.

    It's just, not that profitable. So we are back to the quite tame DLC plan of a secondary product.
    Missing the point, I didn't ever say it was not profitable but still a mile over other CA titles. Which it is. So even less than 1, it still makes no sense given that it's still their second most profitable title.
    How are you making that calculation?
    Their own admittance, the various steam sale record sites, or my favorite player height numbers.

    So yeah, you show me even one game that has a concurrent number of active players on steam from their library that compares to game II.

    Because I have no idea where you seem to have gotten your calculation from.
  • Xenos7Xenos7 Registered Users Posts: 5,229
    Nyxilis said:

    Xenos7 said:

    Nyxilis said:

    Xenos7 said:

    Nyxilis said:



    Game 2 has been profitable, and quite happily for CA other than the public relation snafus.

    Sure, it has been profitable. If this wasn't the case we wouldn't even got the few things we got. Look at Mass Effect and Command & Conquer series: big publishers have no loyalty to brands, they will happily shut down anything which doesn't make money.

    It's just, not that profitable. So we are back to the quite tame DLC plan of a secondary product.
    Missing the point, I didn't ever say it was not profitable but still a mile over other CA titles. Which it is. So even less than 1, it still makes no sense given that it's still their second most profitable title.
    How are you making that calculation?
    Their own admittance, the various steam sale record sites, or my favorite player height numbers.

    So yeah, you show me even one game that has a concurrent number of active players on steam from their library that compares to game II.

    Because I have no idea where you seem to have gotten your calculation from.
    You don't have to look at current active players, you have to look at peak players. It's obvious all games lose players with time, even the most successful ones.
  • NyxilisNyxilis Registered Users Posts: 3,403
    Xenos7 said:


    You don't have to look at current active players, you have to look at peak players. It's obvious all games lose players with time, even the most successful ones.

    Peak players still overwhelming supports what I'm saying here. So once more, no idea where you're getting your idea from. Warhammer one was massively over any of their prior games. Warhammer II is still leaps and bounds over that and with DLC still selling it's still making money. Game three can still sell less than 2 and beat other CA titles. Warhammer is with ease their biggest cash cow they've ever done.

    And precisely why they put out that poll some of us got about what titles we want to see. Like, if we want to see more fantasy titles. So they're clearly not marching away from the idea of fantasy. Rather marching towards it and even 3k to some 'romantic' ideas on history to.
  • Vanilla_GorillaVanilla_Gorilla Registered Users Posts: 17,667
    Of course CA have more than 1 team. Whether or not those teams are always full is another thing. I don't know and I don't care, all I care about is results.
    Nyxilis said:

    Xenos7 said:


    You don't have to look at current active players, you have to look at peak players. It's obvious all games lose players with time, even the most successful ones.

    Peak players still overwhelming supports what I'm saying here. So once more, no idea where you're getting your idea from. Warhammer one was massively over any of their prior games. Warhammer II is still leaps and bounds over that and with DLC still selling it's still making money. Game three can still sell less than 2 and beat other CA titles. Warhammer is with ease their biggest cash cow they've ever done.

    And precisely why they put out that poll some of us got about what titles we want to see. Like, if we want to see more fantasy titles. So they're clearly not marching away from the idea of fantasy. Rather marching towards it and even 3k to some 'romantic' ideas on history to.
    I have to agree with you here. It seems likely they'll play with fantasy elements for a while to come if nothing else. Having a historical side and a fantasy side both sharing resources and supporting eachother while also having slightly different fanbases.
    Game 3 must have variety in its core races. Ogres, Chaos Dwarfs, Kislev, and Demons of Chaos in its full iconic, glorious, undivided glory.
  • Commissar_GCommissar_G Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 10,255
    Nyxilis said:

    Xenos7 said:


    You don't have to look at current active players, you have to look at peak players. It's obvious all games lose players with time, even the most successful ones.

    Peak players still overwhelming supports what I'm saying here. So once more, no idea where you're getting your idea from. Warhammer one was massively over any of their prior games. Warhammer II is still leaps and bounds over that and with DLC still selling it's still making money. Game three can still sell less than 2 and beat other CA titles. Warhammer is with ease their biggest cash cow they've ever done.

    And precisely why they put out that poll some of us got about what titles we want to see. Like, if we want to see more fantasy titles. So they're clearly not marching away from the idea of fantasy. Rather marching towards it and even 3k to some 'romantic' ideas on history to.
    They also stated Beastmen was there best selling DLC ever after it released. Hard to imagine if it was off the back of a smaller playerbase.
    "As a sandbox game everyone, without exception, should be able to play the game exactly as they see fit and that means providing the maximum scope possible." - ~UNiOnJaCk~
  • Xenos7Xenos7 Registered Users Posts: 5,229
    Nyxilis said:

    Xenos7 said:


    You don't have to look at current active players, you have to look at peak players. It's obvious all games lose players with time, even the most successful ones.

    Peak players still overwhelming supports what I'm saying here. So once more, no idea where you're getting your idea from. Warhammer one was massively over any of their prior games. Warhammer II is still leaps and bounds over that and with DLC still selling it's still making money. Game three can still sell less than 2 and beat other CA titles. Warhammer is with ease their biggest cash cow they've ever done.

    And precisely why they put out that poll some of us got about what titles we want to see. Like, if we want to see more fantasy titles. So they're clearly not marching away from the idea of fantasy. Rather marching towards it and even 3k to some 'romantic' ideas on history to.
    Well, let's look at the actual numbers...

    Rome 2: 118,240
    Warhammer: 111,909
    Warhammer II: 72,112

    That's a 30% decline from the most successful title and the direct predecessor. For comparison, let's look at some other sequel:

    Divinity Orginal Sin Classic: 21,953
    Divinity Original Sin II: 93,350

    Civilization V: 91,020
    Civilization VI: 162,314
    Civ: Beyond Earth: 86,747

    Here you are, BE performed 10% worse than the parent game, was considered a relative failure and abandoned after a single expansion. Warhammer II performed, I repeat, 30% worse.

    Gentlemen, let's stop being in denial, shall we. The game is doing badly and that's the reason we are getting light DLC without monsters like Q&C and a glacial release schedule. No need to search for more elaborate explanations when the numbers are here.
  • hanesdavhanesdav Registered Users Posts: 855
    Xenos7 said:

    Nyxilis said:

    Xenos7 said:


    You don't have to look at current active players, you have to look at peak players. It's obvious all games lose players with time, even the most successful ones.

    Peak players still overwhelming supports what I'm saying here. So once more, no idea where you're getting your idea from. Warhammer one was massively over any of their prior games. Warhammer II is still leaps and bounds over that and with DLC still selling it's still making money. Game three can still sell less than 2 and beat other CA titles. Warhammer is with ease their biggest cash cow they've ever done.

    And precisely why they put out that poll some of us got about what titles we want to see. Like, if we want to see more fantasy titles. So they're clearly not marching away from the idea of fantasy. Rather marching towards it and even 3k to some 'romantic' ideas on history to.
    Well, let's look at the actual numbers...

    Rome 2: 118,240
    Warhammer: 111,909
    Warhammer II: 72,112

    That's a 30% decline from the most successful title and the direct predecessor. For comparison, let's look at some other sequel:

    Divinity Orginal Sin Classic: 21,953
    Divinity Original Sin II: 93,350

    Civilization V: 91,020
    Civilization VI: 162,314
    Civ: Beyond Earth: 86,747

    Here you are, BE performed 10% worse than the parent game, was considered a relative failure and abandoned after a single expansion. Warhammer II performed, I repeat, 30% worse.

    Gentlemen, let's stop being in denial, shall we. The game is doing badly and that's the reason we are getting light DLC without monsters like Q&C and a glacial release schedule. No need to search for more elaborate explanations when the numbers are here.
    Those numbers are from all-time peak. They do not represent current active players. 30-Day average TWW2 has many times more active players than any other TW game. TWW2 right now is their only reliable source of income.
  • chrissher7chrissher7 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,038
    edited June 2018
    Xenos7 said:

    Nyxilis said:

    Xenos7 said:


    You don't have to look at current active players, you have to look at peak players. It's obvious all games lose players with time, even the most successful ones.

    Peak players still overwhelming supports what I'm saying here. So once more, no idea where you're getting your idea from. Warhammer one was massively over any of their prior games. Warhammer II is still leaps and bounds over that and with DLC still selling it's still making money. Game three can still sell less than 2 and beat other CA titles. Warhammer is with ease their biggest cash cow they've ever done.

    And precisely why they put out that poll some of us got about what titles we want to see. Like, if we want to see more fantasy titles. So they're clearly not marching away from the idea of fantasy. Rather marching towards it and even 3k to some 'romantic' ideas on history to.
    Well, let's look at the actual numbers...

    Rome 2: 118,240
    Warhammer: 111,909
    Warhammer II: 72,112

    That's a 30% decline from the most successful title and the direct predecessor. For comparison, let's look at some other sequel:

    Divinity Orginal Sin Classic: 21,953
    Divinity Original Sin II: 93,350

    Civilization V: 91,020
    Civilization VI: 162,314
    Civ: Beyond Earth: 86,747

    Here you are, BE performed 10% worse than the parent game, was considered a relative failure and abandoned after a single expansion. Warhammer II performed, I repeat, 30% worse.

    Gentlemen, let's stop being in denial, shall we. The game is doing badly and that's the reason we are getting light DLC without monsters like Q&C and a glacial release schedule. No need to search for more elaborate explanations when the numbers are here.
    However that still is not exactly bad is it? If this is the real reason then although it justifies lower quality it still doesn’t justify the glacial release schedule and nothing ever could justify it either. Their pace is just unacceptable as long as lizardmen and skaven remain inferior. I do not care about amounts of money it did not make. Honestly they could abandon it until the third game after that if they want that might save them some cash if those numbers are really considered bad here. My huge issue is with doing this campaign pack first with a clearly gutted team. It just is wasting their valuable time adding a new race while core ones are still unbalanced in very basic things like lords.

  • CrossilCrossil Registered Users Posts: 5,956
    Xenos7 said:

    Nyxilis said:

    Xenos7 said:


    You don't have to look at current active players, you have to look at peak players. It's obvious all games lose players with time, even the most successful ones.

    Peak players still overwhelming supports what I'm saying here. So once more, no idea where you're getting your idea from. Warhammer one was massively over any of their prior games. Warhammer II is still leaps and bounds over that and with DLC still selling it's still making money. Game three can still sell less than 2 and beat other CA titles. Warhammer is with ease their biggest cash cow they've ever done.

    And precisely why they put out that poll some of us got about what titles we want to see. Like, if we want to see more fantasy titles. So they're clearly not marching away from the idea of fantasy. Rather marching towards it and even 3k to some 'romantic' ideas on history to.
    Well, let's look at the actual numbers...

    Rome 2: 118,240
    Warhammer: 111,909
    Warhammer II: 72,112

    That's a 30% decline from the most successful title and the direct predecessor. For comparison, let's look at some other sequel:

    Divinity Orginal Sin Classic: 21,953
    Divinity Original Sin II: 93,350

    Civilization V: 91,020
    Civilization VI: 162,314
    Civ: Beyond Earth: 86,747

    Here you are, BE performed 10% worse than the parent game, was considered a relative failure and abandoned after a single expansion. Warhammer II performed, I repeat, 30% worse.

    Gentlemen, let's stop being in denial, shall we. The game is doing badly and that's the reason we are getting light DLC without monsters like Q&C and a glacial release schedule. No need to search for more elaborate explanations when the numbers are here.
    Which completely ignores how many people DLC for these games brings back. There's a spike every time new DLC gets added, which is a good show of how valuable it is. It also fails to account that the numbers of players for both are exactly the same when looking at the daily numbers in both games(at the time before game 2 there was the exact same number of players of game 1 as there is in game 2 right now). And Rome wasn't good with DLC, in fact none of historical ones was good with DLC. Most you can say is that game 2 didn't sell as many copies but DLC seems to still be as profitable.
    UNLEASH THE EVERCHARIOT
Sign In or Register to comment.