Greetings everyone, today I wanted to discuss the new DLC being announced this Thursday and the most recent public relations disaster that are plaguing CA. In case anyone was unaware several fanstook what an official said at CA out of context. This sparked a community uproar which eventually ignited into a sexist agenda. This is a VERY short version of what transpired and I strongly encourage anyone who has not looked into it personally to do so. What does this have to do with the new DLC announcement for Total War: Warhammer 2 though? Everything, in an act of retaliation against CA hundreds (if not thousands) of reviews in the last several weeks have been overwhelmingly negative against not just Rome 2, but all of CA games including Total War: Warhammer.
In CA's most recent announcement trailer, Total War: THREE KINGDOMS-Yellow Turban Rebellion this exact reaction was still fresh in the minds of at least several hundred fans. While thousands of fans spoke out against CA for what they believed to be one sided day one DLC practices, several hundred misquoted CA officials saying "if you do not like the game, play something else" [at the time of writing this however I went back and reviewed the comments of the video and noticed that almost all comments that had several hundred to over a thousand likes describing the matter are no longer present as the top comments]. With CA's products being review bombed coupled with people slandering their name on any new video that is posted via Youtube I am worried for the next DLC as well as future products.
If people are still sore and begin smearing the new DLC fresh out of the gate, I am worried CA will retract content even further. Many of us are still uncertain why CA has been so quiet about release schedules and why there has been such a dry spell of new content (even if they told us it was because people complained there was too much DLC in TW:W1). Though many of us here know the real story of what transpired between CA recently and will eagerly buy the new DLC, we are not the average consumer. Many people will simply go to the new trailer on Youtube, see the top comments about how CA has become EA and simply not buy the game out of retaliation rather than say the content is not worth the money. This could spell disaster for future DLC plans, funding could potentially be reallocated to other projects or they could even cut off funding to TW:W2 and push W3 out of the gate to be done with franchise. We are guaranteed at least one more DLC after this one, but I personally want as much DLC as they can crank out and am more than willing to pay for it!
What are everyone else's thoughts though? Are these valid concerns and is anyone else worried about how the new DLC will sell based upon the recent public relations downfall? Let me as I would personally love to be wrong about this one.
0 ·
Comments
- Spam
- Abuse
- Report
0 · Like- Spam
- Abuse
- Report
2 · 2LikeMany like me won't be buying WH3 at launch simply because of the massive screw-up CA did with WH2. Wh1 was awesome, WH2 is a freaking ****-show, so my expectations now are that WH3 will be the same as WH2, aka low amount of DLC, patches attached to DLC and some mediocre DLCs for half of them (TK was nice though).
- Spam
- Abuse
- Report
3 · 3LikeBut I think sales numbers have the biggest impact. If the DLC is good, the majority of rating will reflect that, and relatively few reviews will show otherwise.
- Spam
- Abuse
- Report
0 · LikeIt won't affect the DLC in the slightest.
- Spam
- Abuse
- Report
2 · 2Like3K might be CA's first game to start out in the Negatives honestly.
- Spam
- Abuse
- Report
0 · LikeIf anything forum posters are the minority.
- Spam
- Abuse
- Report
0 · Like- Spam
- Abuse
- Report
1 · 1Like- Spam
- Abuse
- Report
0 · LikeAnd the bad PR move was done in a Rome 2 related media no ?
But CA could have avoided tis very simply: make it optional, sams as with nlood and gore!
You like femake general, play with it! You don't, tick the option off!
Problem solved, no drama...
I don't think it would have a bid impact on Warhammer. if CA starts withdrawing DLC for Warahmmer because of review intiallyu for Rome.... They can withdraw everything...
- Spam
- Abuse
- Report
0 · Like- Spam
- Abuse
- Report
0 · Like- Spam
- Abuse
- Report
0 · Like- Spam
- Abuse
- Report
0 · LikeNow, obviously anyone who had just said "If you do not like the game, play something else" would have technically misquoted as that isn't the exact wording, but that obviously has the same essential meaning as the quote. I'm gonna assume good faith here and that you're not just taking people using slightly different wording to the same effect and you saying they're "misquoting" while intentionally failing to mention that something basically the same had been said.
So the question I'm asking is, did the quote I listed - “If having female units upsets you that much you can either mod them out or just not play. People saying they won’t buy the game because there are too many women in it is fine with us—if that’s their reason, we’d rather they didn’t anyway.” - not exist at all? Because I haven't seen anyone say anything indicating that their objection to this is based on sexism (although my not having seen it myself doesn't mean noone has done it) but I have seen many people who have taken the view that a company changing the content of a game long after it has been bought and paid for then implying that people who are unhappy with the changes should not play any more if it bothers them is wrong. If that quote itself didn't exist at all, I don't think they'd have any reason to be upset at all?
- Spam
- Abuse
- Report
0 · Like- Spam
- Abuse
- Report
1 · 1LikeBut as I said above, it isn't about R2, it's about the Daily Stormer pushing its regressive agenda.
- Spam
- Abuse
- Report
0 · LikeUnless I'm completely misunderstanding something, you're suggesting that the only reason people would object to a company changing the content of a game long after it had been bought and paid for and suggesting anyone who doesn't like it shouldn't play or buy any future games is if they subscribe to the belief systems of a website that promotes white supremacy and the genocide of Jews? Don't you think that's a bit of a leap?
- Spam
- Abuse
- Report
0 · LikeThe original article with the screenshot of multiple female characters originated from Daily Stormer and got a loud minority hot under the collar. To correct you, Ella was talking to a minority who felt the need to get that excited they decided to consistently break forum rules.
- Spam
- Abuse
- Report
1 · 1LikeAt a 10-15% spawn rate it's already optional as is. This is all a non issue based on lies.
- Spam
- Abuse
- Report
0 · LikeIn instances like that, if the story turns out to be true, it will later be reported by other outlets also. At a point where the veracity of the story is proven to be accurate, it wouldn't be fair to imply that anyone who believes and reacts to the story is not reacting to the story, just reacting to an agenda pushed by the Daily Mail. Just like here, even if the Daily Stormer was the original source of complaints about this issue, it doesn't mean that everyone who has objections has them because they personally read or support the Daily Stormer.
That's beside the point though, because the majority of people I've seen with objections haven't objected to the inclusion of women generals, they've objected to the quote they saw, which I gather wasn't part of this original article.
Anyway, it's not correcting me; I'm not the person who originated this quote and as I said before, I can't find where it came from anywhere, I can just find people referencing it. You seem to have a better idea about it though; When you say it was an admonishment for breaking forum rules, can you provide any further context? The precise wording of it seems to indicate that it was a response to an objection to game content... I'm not really sure how it would be applicable as a response to breaking forum rules. Can you shed any light on this?
- Spam
- Abuse
- Report
0 · LikeYou'll find it in this thread.
The way Ella's comment is presented is as if she made an announcement thread and stated it. Rather it was when she closed a thread and was speaking to the thread which was full of people spewing abuse.
Mind you, even if her comment was to the masses (it wasn't) it's really not that bad.
- Spam
- Abuse
- Report
1 · 1Like- Spam
- Abuse
- Report
0 · Like- Spam
- Abuse
- Report
0 · LikeI find it hilarious when they have little to say about the threats yet give excuses like "she's a representative" those people abusing her aren't (so that's fine).
I'm getting pretty bored with it now, I really don't know where people find the energy to be angry about something for so long, that really has so real impact on their lives. I can only assume they're still living with their parents and have no problems to worry about.
- Spam
- Abuse
- Report
0 · LikeSo the bit about not buying games and if they don't like it they're not the sort of people CA want buying the games doesn't seem to actually be part of the quote at all (unless it was a separate quote and the two are just placed together with poor grammar). I think that's a large part of what the people I've seen are objecting to.
I think it's probably unfortunate that this quote bears a resemblance to the recent quote from EA about Battlefield. Regardless of views on the importance of historical accuracy, I think it's obvious to people that EA are a pretty scummy, blood sucking company who are always out to make a quick buck off people and that if they're inserting a political agenda into a game it's a cynical attempt to market to the people that agenda will appeal to, rather than a case of legitimately caring about that agenda. In an instance where a morally reprehensible company like EA makes a transparent attempt to cast themselves as the good guys by engaging in moral grandstanding against their consumers and acting like they're dirt if they don't follow EA's narrative, you can see why people get so annoyed.
As a result it seems like the superficial similarity of the quotes has resulted in this getting caught up in part of the same, ongoing backlash.
- Spam
- Abuse
- Report
0 · LikeThen it evolved into this, here you will find quote you have been searching for, this CA_Ella comment on the other hand has not led to thread's termination: https://steamcommunity.com/app/214950/discussions/0/1746720717346294901?ctp=15
Also people claiming that the original article with screenshot of multiple female characters originated from Daly Stormer are either wrong or have a dog in this fight: https://www.oneangrygamer.net/2018/09/total-war-rome-2-dev-defends-female-generals-says-if-gamers-dont-like-it-dont-play/69806/
- Spam
- Abuse
- Report
0 · LikeSo they used the pic from the Daily Stormer site? Your point? Plus they also said there was a 50% chance of getting a female general which you know isn't true.
Are you still all angry? I'd see a doctor..
- Spam
- Abuse
- Report
2 · 2LikeThat being said, Daily Stormer article came out on 23th of September.
One Angry Gamer article came out on 21th of September.
Please, don't try to move goalpost again, I'm not discussing whether it is true or not but chronological order of the events.
- Spam
- Abuse
- Report
0 · LikeThe fact is it isn't true, even Republic of Game, who isn't exactly a fan of CA said that the picture was bull and you'd have to try very hard to make it happen.
I'm sorry that this is 'upsetting' you so much.
- Spam
- Abuse
- Report
0 · LikeI'm struggling to understand how people think this is, in any way, a misquote. It's exactly what people are saying was said.
- Spam
- Abuse
- Report
0 · Like