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

Steam Reviews, Paywalls, and the Effect on DLC Production

24

Comments

  • ValkaarValkaar Junior Member Posts: 1,645Registered Users

    Valkaar said:

    I think you think CA cares about that stuff more than they do.

    Yeah, sure, sometimes CA is transparent for the reason behind various decisions, such as why Norsca was delayed for Game 2.

    But a lot of the time, they use the same type of PR, doublespeak, business excuses that they think will lessen backlash as any other company; and these excuses rarely correlate to the actual problem.

    The actual reason the DLC pace has been slow likely has to do with how many different projects they are working on at the same time and needed to spread out release dates for it all in order to avoid oversaturating their market.

    But they can't come out and say that^^ Not with all the "separate teams" criticisms they've already received. So what better way to steer ire away from themselves by displacing it on people who DARE give their products negative reviews? It's actually pretty clever.

    TL;DR: Steam reviews have nothing to do with DLC production pace and CA knows it. They are just trying to maximize sales by giving all their content a unique release window while giving us a strawman to be angry with that isn't themselves.

    False. Compare the CotBM or RotWE campaign packs to TK and VCoast. The latter really got a lot of extra effort put into them.
    Yeah I'm not talking about the quality of DLC. By all means, the quality has gone way up. Likely as their DLC experiments have paid off.

    I'm just talking about the DLC schedule...which I don't believe has anything to do with negative reviews, even if that was CAs stated excuse for why DLC production had slowed down.
  • Mr_Finley7Mr_Finley7 Junior Member Posts: 3,715Registered Users
    Do people really trust the cess pool of human opinion that is the steam reviews section? I’ve never considered a steam rating when I’ve bought a new game, and this is a great example of why no one should listen to them.
  • GingerRoeBroGingerRoeBro Senior Member Posts: 2,740Registered Users
    Valkaar said:

    Valkaar said:

    I think you think CA cares about that stuff more than they do.

    Yeah, sure, sometimes CA is transparent for the reason behind various decisions, such as why Norsca was delayed for Game 2.

    But a lot of the time, they use the same type of PR, doublespeak, business excuses that they think will lessen backlash as any other company; and these excuses rarely correlate to the actual problem.

    The actual reason the DLC pace has been slow likely has to do with how many different projects they are working on at the same time and needed to spread out release dates for it all in order to avoid oversaturating their market.

    But they can't come out and say that^^ Not with all the "separate teams" criticisms they've already received. So what better way to steer ire away from themselves by displacing it on people who DARE give their products negative reviews? It's actually pretty clever.

    TL;DR: Steam reviews have nothing to do with DLC production pace and CA knows it. They are just trying to maximize sales by giving all their content a unique release window while giving us a strawman to be angry with that isn't themselves.

    False. Compare the CotBM or RotWE campaign packs to TK and VCoast. The latter really got a lot of extra effort put into them.
    Yeah I'm not talking about the quality of DLC. By all means, the quality has gone way up. Likely as their DLC experiments have paid off.

    I'm just talking about the DLC schedule...which I don't believe has anything to do with negative reviews, even if that was CAs stated excuse for why DLC production had slowed down.
    I honestly think the reason is that they have too many projects ongoing too and that the "separate teams" is nonsense.

    I mean really. Think as to how many patches ToB specifically has gotten since release. Like 1?
    Bigger Budget for game 3?

    They're gonna need it for all of the monogod glory.
    Which will be the "4 distinct gods representing the different aspects of Chaos such as Khorne, Slaanesh, Tzeentch, and Nurgle." :blush: ^CA quote

    Thank you CA for seeing them as what they truly are.
    Let the Games Begin!
    https://warhammerfantasy.fandom.com/wiki/The_Great_Game
  • dge1dge1 Moderator Arkansas, USAPosts: 17,840Registered Users, Moderators, Knights

    Do people really trust the cess pool of human opinion that is the steam reviews section? I’ve never considered a steam rating when I’ve bought a new game, and this is a great example of why no one should listen to them.

    I quite agree.
    "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
  • GingerRoeBroGingerRoeBro Senior Member Posts: 2,740Registered Users

    Do people really trust the cess pool of human opinion that is the steam reviews section? I’ve never considered a steam rating when I’ve bought a new game, and this is a great example of why no one should listen to them.

    Well, its probably the only source of reviews that has no moderation.

    If it did, then every garbage dump of a game would have 98% positive reviews and high scores would mean nothing.
    Bigger Budget for game 3?

    They're gonna need it for all of the monogod glory.
    Which will be the "4 distinct gods representing the different aspects of Chaos such as Khorne, Slaanesh, Tzeentch, and Nurgle." :blush: ^CA quote

    Thank you CA for seeing them as what they truly are.
    Let the Games Begin!
    https://warhammerfantasy.fandom.com/wiki/The_Great_Game
  • RazmirthRazmirth Posts: 2,042Registered Users
    edited November 2018
    Paywalls...

    Back in my day there wasn’t even DLC. Games came out in expansions if they actually sold wel enough to make an expansion. you had to wait 1-2 years for a buggy unbalanced mess that you got to play with friends over dialup internet. Which meant it literally took 1 hour or more to finally run a successful game of multiplayer without someone disconnecting and having to restart the match.

    No one back then complained about paywalls or companies being greedy. Now some may argue “well shows what you know razmirth, because old school expansions had way more content, so stick that in your pipe and smoke it”. To which I will say yes...you are correct. They also costed the equivalent of a brand new game, usually 50-70 dollars. In fact, most new games these days are about 20 dollars cheaper on release, and are on sale on steam for 10-25% off in the first year often. So much cheaper than when I was a teenager. I had a 10 buck a week allowance at 16. Took me 2-3 months to save up for one game. If my brother and I wanted a new game system, it took us both 3-4 months putting out money together to achieve that goal.


    On top of that, you didn’t even know what you were buying. There were no preview videos, online interviews with dev teams, or even trailers. Only companies like Nintendo could afford commercials, and they were 30 second teasers which showed hardly anyThing to go on gameplay wise. Only way you found out about most new games was from your rich buddy who got PC magazine or Nintendo power who brought it to school for the rest of us average folk to read it during our lunch break.

    Now DLC these days is less content for a cheaper price, released at a more frequent rate. It’s also done this way because not everyone likes each dlc. It took me 2 years to buy beastmen, grim and the grave and king and chaos. Not cause they sucked, but because I didn’t feel they were worth paying 20 bucks for since I didn’t have a huge passion for those factions. I bought them on sale for like 8 bucks each.

    Hidden behind pay wall would be like releasing the game with 4 factions but only allowing tier 1-2 units, then putting tier 3-top behind DLC for units, heroes, equipment etc. That’s a paywall. This is just creating content and letting people choose what they like or don’t like.
  • NyxilisNyxilis Posts: 2,596Registered Users
    It is a paywall to get that faction, but ultimately it is a significant addition for any of them that would otherwise not have happened.

    It still boils down do I get the additions? Or do I not? And the answer without it would be no.

    You want those elves then buy them. And I'm not sorry to say that because if people don't then they wont make more. We have another Lord Pack coming and they promised more in it with more delightful rat toys. I would not be seeing that if nobody bought lord packs. I would not be hoping for more factions if they did not think it would earn money.

    This game would be a dismal fraction of its current glory if we had to rely on first run sales. And heaven forbid they put in things that basically say buy the product.
  • Vanilla_GorillaVanilla_Gorilla Posts: 13,767Registered Users
    I'll also point out that Steam reviews are currently at 85% putting them in the "very positive" category. It's only reviews within the last 30 days that are in the "mostly positive" category.

    https://store.steampowered.com/app/594570/Total_War_WARHAMMER_II/

    This isn't a case like BM where it was so abysmally bad it would threaten future sales or cause them to change how they do things.
    Game 3 must have variety in its core races. Ogres, Chaos Dwarfs, Kislev, and Demons of Chaos in its full iconic, glorious, undivided glory.
  • HoneyBunHoneyBun Senior Member Posts: 4,155Registered Users
    Compared to Paradox, CA is extremely generous and reasonably priced.

    Yet somehow CA is the one who gets bashed.

    Internet be crazy.

    They are making an FPS. Who knew a company could have a mid-life crisis ...

  • KelefaneKelefane Posts: 947Registered Users
    Heavy DLCed out games will always get some hate. Thing about it is, if you're a company planning on having a sea of DLC for your game, then that game better be pretty damn awesome, otherwise, any DLC made will be frowned upon and garner more negative rep then usual.
  • Xenos7Xenos7 Posts: 4,457Registered Users
    edited November 2018
    Razmirth said:

    Paywalls...

    Back in my day there wasn’t even DLC. Games came out in expansions if they actually sold wel enough to make an expansion. you had to wait 1-2 years for a buggy unbalanced mess that you got to play with friends over dialup internet. Which meant it literally took 1 hour or more to finally run a successful game of multiplayer without someone disconnecting and having to restart the match.

    No one back then complained about paywalls or companies being greedy. Now some may argue “well shows what you know razmirth, because old school expansions had way more content, so stick that in your pipe and smoke it”. To which I will say yes...you are correct. They also costed the equivalent of a brand new game, usually 50-70 dollars. In fact, most new games these days are about 20 dollars cheaper on release, and are on sale on steam for 10-25% off in the first year often. So much cheaper than when I was a teenager. I had a 10 buck a week allowance at 16. Took me 2-3 months to save up for one game. If my brother and I wanted a new game system, it took us both 3-4 months putting out money together to achieve that goal.


    On top of that, you didn’t even know what you were buying. There were no preview videos, online interviews with dev teams, or even trailers. Only companies like Nintendo could afford commercials, and they were 30 second teasers which showed hardly anyThing to go on gameplay wise. Only way you found out about most new games was from your rich buddy who got PC magazine or Nintendo power who brought it to school for the rest of us average folk to read it during our lunch break.

    Now DLC these days is less content for a cheaper price, released at a more frequent rate. It’s also done this way because not everyone likes each dlc. It took me 2 years to buy beastmen, grim and the grave and king and chaos. Not cause they sucked, but because I didn’t feel they were worth paying 20 bucks for since I didn’t have a huge passion for those factions. I bought them on sale for like 8 bucks each.

    Hidden behind pay wall would be like releasing the game with 4 factions but only allowing tier 1-2 units, then putting tier 3-top behind DLC for units, heroes, equipment etc. That’s a paywall. This is just creating content and letting people choose what they like or don’t like.

    Oh, another old timer like me. I remember hunting for cheap games at 30€ as a kid. Now if I see a 30€ game on Steam I go "geez, that's expensive, let's wait for a sale". I have like 1100 games on steam now. If I had to buy those at early 2000 prices I would have had to sell my house.
    Post edited by Xenos7 on
  • DebaucheeDebauchee Junior Member Posts: 1,383Registered Users
    DSDSDSD said:

    It has been over a week since the Curse of the Vampire Coast DLC pack has released to positive reception from the community(mostly). However, with the release of new DLC and FLC that add to the content and life-span of the game, come the inevitable outpour of negative steam reviews bashing the game for "locking content behind a paywall" and "anti-consumer sales practises."

    As of now the steam review section for Total War Warhammer 2 is sitting at a 'mostly positive,' having gone down from the 'very positive' it was sitting at prior to the release of the COtVC DLC.

    Now a lot of members on the forum might not care about this complaining, but the potential effect these review-bombers could have on the life-cycle of the game is alarming. CA has taken notice of these negative reviews, and, when accounting for the lack of Warhammer DLC, used the negative steam reviews as a reason for delayed production. Due to CA's patching process, if the negative reviewers can influence CA to not make as much DLC, then that's less patching that will be done on the game, hurting everybody.

    I can only hope that CA no longer takes into account these Steam reviewers(some of which believe none of the DLC races should cost anything) when making new DLC. The idea that all of the DLC races and lord packs are merely content locked behind a paywall is absolutely ridiculous and only serves to hamper the potential of this recreation of the Warhammer World.

    It is 78%/85% for me which is still very positive. Maybe you are looking at reviews in a specific language?
  • DebaucheeDebauchee Junior Member Posts: 1,383Registered Users
    HoneyBun said:

    Compared to Paradox, CA is extremely generous and reasonably priced.

    Yet somehow CA is the one who gets bashed.

    Internet be crazy.

    One patch per DLC is not even remotely generous.
    Both companies have their own share of msitakes and anti-consumer practises. Both have vocal groups of malcontents.
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Posts: 17,860Registered Users
    Debauchee said:

    HoneyBun said:

    Compared to Paradox, CA is extremely generous and reasonably priced.

    Yet somehow CA is the one who gets bashed.

    Internet be crazy.

    One patch per DLC is not even remotely generous.
    Both companies have their own share of msitakes and anti-consumer practises. Both have vocal groups of malcontents.
    What is generous is that you have the content in your game, even if unplayable, whether you bought the DLC or not. With Paradox you simply get nothing unless you bought it and since they'll balance the game with the new content in mind, you'll quickly run into difficulties with your more vanilla games.
  • Xenos7Xenos7 Posts: 4,457Registered Users
    HoneyBun said:

    Compared to Paradox, CA is extremely generous and reasonably priced.

    Yet somehow CA is the one who gets bashed.

    Internet be crazy.

    I feel both are reasonably priced. CA race packs are more flashy so it's easier to justify the 20$ price tag, but Paradox expansions are usually full of interesting mechanics. I actually think CA should raise the price to cram more content into each DLC, as they have TT as a source to compare with. People bashing companies because they offer optional content are hurting the whole playerbase and I just can't suffer them.
  • RewanRewan Senior Member Posts: 843Registered Users
    That's because the DLC content is in the game regardless of buying it or not


    While that's correct again for compatibility : they are still doing half the job preventing the player to access it. Which is ridiculously sloppy afaic.

    Lemme reiterate :

    1) If I want to confederate with Alarielle I should be able to because diplomacy should not be hampered by DLC non-use.

    2) If CA really doesn't want me to use the LL/the units/the buildings/the agents that comes in the DLC I see nothing wrong with that* : CA definitely can autodemolish and autodisband them - and as a matter of fact as I've said the building gets destroyed automatically so it's not impossible nor far-fetched

    *(except again, it's a change of stance that happened without saying anything which I feel is a bad PR move but it doesn't really matter in this context)


    People you need to stop "demonizing" the guys that complain about stuff like this. DLC's will make a game run on the long term, that's correct.
    But it needs to be done in a fair and healthy way for everyone. That's all.
  • Xenos7Xenos7 Posts: 4,457Registered Users
    Rewan said:

    That's because the DLC content is in the game regardless of buying it or not


    While that's correct again for compatibility : they are still doing half the job preventing the player to access it. Which is ridiculously sloppy afaic.

    Lemme reiterate :

    1) If I want to confederate with Alarielle I should be able to because diplomacy should not be hampered by DLC non-use.
    I honestly don't see why. In this game mechanics aren't that tied to DLC because DLC are mostly new units, but that's not the rule. In games made up of mechanics everything is impacted by DLC. For example in EUIV you can't develop provinces without a specific DLC, which means you can't use a gimmick which is important for technology as a non-european nation.

    I see no problem with that, personally. People buying the DLC are rewarded with more options, why not?
  • TayvarTayvar Posts: 9,846Registered Users
    Rewan said:

    Well you don't but I do because that's a paywall (on diplomacy if anything else)

    I don't want to use the DLC units, heck if confederating without the DLC disbanded said units I would be fine with it. (some may not but I would because again I don't really care)
    BUT
    It's just that up until now CA had a very lenient policy towards the matter (aka you the player can't recruit DLC units but they are in your campaign and the AI may use them against you and/or you may get them if you confederate) : it has been like that since the Shogun 2 days.

    I'm just raising my yellow flag on the issue here : the policy has been - visibly - changed without any communication by CA (afaik) and that change is technically a paywall put onto the game hence my original argument : "don't just dismiss completely the paywall claim" (completely being bolded for a reason)


    (Which is also worrying for me because of 3K but discussing about that would be off-topic)

    Well looks like CA changed their policy, in the past you was able to get a DLC Lords from the same faction by a confederation without buying the DLC, and now you are not able to do that.
    4 Fully Independent Monogods Armies would be great for a Storyline about the Great Game in Total War: Warhammer 3.
  • DebaucheeDebauchee Junior Member Posts: 1,383Registered Users
    edited November 2018



    What is generous is that you have the content in your game, even if unplayable, whether you bought the DLC or not. With Paradox you simply get nothing unless you bought it and since they'll balance the game with the new content in mind, you'll quickly run into difficulties with your more vanilla games.


    Yeah right, you totally don't get into any difficulties when playing your vanilla skaven. The game totally is not balanced with extra units and RoR you get from lord packs. Yes, you can skip some lacking or subjectively uninteresting DLC, but modern TW is not a game you should be playing vanilla either.
    Moreover, it is simply not true, that you get nothing without buying DLC from Paradox, becuase the base game constanlty gets updated. On top of that, it is generoues, that when someone joins your lobby in multiplayr, he can enjoy all the DLC the host has. Even Amplitude has this policy, I don't know why CA won't adopt it.
  • JadawinKhanidiJadawinKhanidi Posts: 620Registered Users
    Of course you can't confederate lords that you didn't buy the DLC for, otherwise you could get all the content in the DLC without paying for it.

    I noticed this when playing Malekith, couldn't confederate Crone Hellebron, which does affect the campaign quite a bit because she starts so close to you. Still, I'd never complain about it, it's obvious that I can't access that bonus content without paying (I bought the DLC since.)

    Already before I bought TWW1 (my first TW game) and checked the reviews, I noticed that almost 100% of negative reviews were just freeloaders complaining they have to pay for DLC, so that actually made me more likely to buy it because I could barely find any negative review that wasn't written by an obvious m*ron. But I guess many people might not see that and just count negative reviews without looking at how baseless they are.
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Posts: 17,860Registered Users
    Debauchee said:



    What is generous is that you have the content in your game, even if unplayable, whether you bought the DLC or not. With Paradox you simply get nothing unless you bought it and since they'll balance the game with the new content in mind, you'll quickly run into difficulties with your more vanilla games.


    Yeah right, you totally don't get into any difficulties when playing your vanilla skaven. The game totally is not balanced with extra units and RoR you get from lord packs. Yes, you can skip some lacking or subjectively uninteresting DLC, but modern TW is not a game you should be playing vanilla either.
    Moreover, it is simply not true, that you get nothing without buying DLC from Paradox, becuase the base game constanlty gets updated. On top of that, it is generoues, that when someone joins your lobby in multiplayr, he can enjoy all the DLC the host has. Even Amplitude has this policy, I don't know why CA won't adopt it.
    Skaven is a special case because CA clearly hates them, but if it's content for a race you don't care about you can skip it and still encounter it in your campaigns.

    Also, nope, Paradox updates with the new content in mind, so whatever updates you get will not be balanced for what you have. I've played enough Paradox games to know the drill. Buy the new content or have your games broken, that's the Paradox way.
  • AwesomeLionAwesomeLion Member Posts: 1,076Registered Users
    Canuovea said:

    I am fairly sure that you can confederate Avalorn and maybe even get some DLC units. That being said, you'd not be able to recruit them. That is how it was in TWW1.

    Confirming this. You can confederate, but you only get DLC units that are already in the army. You won't be able to recruit them.
    Total War: Warhammer <3
  • TayvarTayvar Posts: 9,846Registered Users
    Rewan said:

    Well they do put a paywall on addional toppings or seasonings don't they ? (then again I rarely go to restaurants)


    A paywall is just a... paywall ? While there's generally a bad/good conotations with things I personnally believe the paywall is not "inherently" evil. In this case what appeals to me is the fact it's actually done in a somewhat sloppy way actually. (Because yes I'm digging deeper on this as my campaign goes on)


    So another exemple of this paywall being in place are the handmaidens. The option to recruit them is there but it tells you to build a DLC only building to get them. Okay fair. Now I see another faction (AI) with that building, let's confederate aaaaand the building is gone with no compensation (at the very least give me the worth of the building in coins to compensate, like cmon)

    But now you know what's really dumb in my most humble opinion with this exemple ?



    They actually didn't disband the handmaiden good guy Alith Anar got himself before I confederated with him.


    You might be wondering what's MY problem, well it's just done in a sloppy and non coherent way, that's what is ticking me. The paywall itself again, not inherently evil or good, it's just there. But the means to enforce that paywall must stay coherent.

    It's like you asking for that free beer and they said "okay" and just gave you a tiny sample (I ain't into beer so bear with me on that one), at that point wouldn't you think "Well, they are messing up with me now" ?

    Well playing a base faction without buying it's lord DLC after it's release had always been a handicap.
    4 Fully Independent Monogods Armies would be great for a Storyline about the Great Game in Total War: Warhammer 3.
  • ZelnikZelnik Posts: 336Registered Users
    edited November 2018
    So it seems that there are two opinions in this board, and I will try to boil them down to the essence of their arguments.


    Argument 1: This game and all content that CA creates is art, and we should be happy to pay money for said art. Criticisms can be ignored if unsightly because ultimately, we have no bearing on what is made or added into this game. FLC are like those wonderful extra strokes on a canvas that add to the whole, and since they don't cost anything to the consumer, being critical of them is forbidden.

    Argument 2: All criticisms should be regarded in some measure because this game is a product on a market, and ignoring the customer reviews is done at their own peril. The cash of the consumer is ultimately what pays the bills. CA acting political, or deliberately restorationist with history after they declared an interest in being accurate is just another way for them to alienate their consumer base.



    Reality shows that Argument 2 is more realistic. People can make platitudes about how CA is like Picasso, and doesn't have to make anything for us, but they are selling a product in an extremely competitive market. Like in any market, the consumer buys based upon quality and content. If quality is lacking for any reason (accidental or deliberate) it will harm the sales of the product in direct proportion to it's cost. The whole of TWWH is NOT cheap to boot. It is a monstrously large game spread over two individual titles and multiple race DLC that shatters the normal $60 per game glass ceiling if you want to experience it in it's full glory. Just to play Mortal Empires costs 120 bucks, DLC for the first game is about 75 dollars, and DLC for the second game is just under 50 dollars so far. These games are NOT cheap.

    Let me shatter a little preconceived notion about FLC. These are not gifts from CA. They are ADVERTISING. They are incentives to get us to buy more of their product. Sure, you can try to play the game with FLC only, and only pay 60 bucks for it, but you would be playing a rather disjointed, husk of a game. remember that some of those FLC are for DLC races to boot.

    If CA wants to remain competitive, respecting and listening to it's consumer base, especially the ones who dropped the 200+ dollars for all of their content, is not only wise, but essential to their future business. If they take the mentality of "just don't buy it," they are falling into a trap that can lose them a LOT of money. No company should tell it's consumer "just don't buy it" because of the risk that they will actually agree with them.

    Most importantly of all, CA should not get political.

    So should they view the review bombing of their games with some sort of clarity and observation? Absolutely. Their fans are upset, and the more upset the customer gets, the less likely they will patronize your game. Despite popular belief, there are other video games out there.

    Should they regard consumer criticisms of their FLC seriously? Yes. FLC are advertising for their game, essentially content designed to get people to purchase the game, because stastically, the moment someone buys the game, they will buy the rest of it shortly thereafter. We need to be just as critical of FLC as DLC, especially if the content makes no sense whatsoever (like Fellheart not being able to man his own Ark. Seriously, shame on CA for that one)



  • Xenos7Xenos7 Posts: 4,457Registered Users
    edited November 2018
    Zelnik said:


    Argument 1: This game and all content that CA creates is art, and we should be happy to pay money for said art. Criticisms can be ignored if unsightly because ultimately, we have no bearing on what is made or added into this game. FLC are like those wonderful extra strokes on a canvas that add to the whole, and since they don't cost anything to the consumer, being critical of them is forbidden.

    Uhm, no, not really. I believe art should be free exactly because it is art, at least after the author has expired. You should be free to read War and Peace without paying anything. But DLC are a product, so just pay for it. Or not. Who cares. People review bombing optional content when they can simply not purchase it are just idiots and should be ignored.
  • GobsmakaGobsmaka Posts: 195Registered Users
    In TWW1 the locked content was the mini campaigns, since we voted to get extra lords/factions and no mini for TWW2 CA have probably decided to lock dlc confederation instead, since you can't lock some factions and not others, without a riot at least, all DLC whether a race or campaign pack is treated the same. This is pure speculation on my part and seems pretty fair to me.
  • TayvarTayvar Posts: 9,846Registered Users
    Xenos7 said:

    HoneyBun said:

    Compared to Paradox, CA is extremely generous and reasonably priced.

    Yet somehow CA is the one who gets bashed.

    Internet be crazy.

    I feel both are reasonably priced. CA race packs are more flashy so it's easier to justify the 20$ price tag, but Paradox expansions are usually full of interesting mechanics. I actually think CA should raise the price to cram more content into each DLC, as they have TT as a source to compare with. People bashing companies because they offer optional content are hurting the whole playerbase and I just can't suffer them.
    Yes the DLCs prices should be fluid, it's would be easier to make human factions DLC that Way.
    4 Fully Independent Monogods Armies would be great for a Storyline about the Great Game in Total War: Warhammer 3.
  • ZelnikZelnik Posts: 336Registered Users
    Xenos7 said:

    Zelnik said:


    Argument 1: This game and all content that CA creates is art, and we should be happy to pay money for said art. Criticisms can be ignored if unsightly because ultimately, we have no bearing on what is made or added into this game. FLC are like those wonderful extra strokes on a canvas that add to the whole, and since they don't cost anything to the consumer, being critical of them is forbidden.

    Uhm, no, not really. I believe art should be free exactly because it is art, at least after the author has expired. You should be free to read War and Peace without paying anything. But DLC are a product, so just pay for it. Or not. Who cares. People review bombing optional content when they can simply not purchase it are just idiots and should be ignored.
    tell that to the bookstore owner, I am pretty sure they want you to buy the book instead of stealing it, or squatting in their shop. Or the printers who put it to paper.

    Nothing is free, somehow, somewhere, someone paid for it. Artists who display their art for free tend to have other income, starve, or aren't particularly good artists.
  • TayvarTayvar Posts: 9,846Registered Users
    Rewan said:

    If I want to confederate with Alarielle I should be able to because diplomacy should not be hampered by DLC non-use.

    Why would Alarielle want to confederate with a player who didn't buy her DLC? :)
    4 Fully Independent Monogods Armies would be great for a Storyline about the Great Game in Total War: Warhammer 3.
  • Xenos7Xenos7 Posts: 4,457Registered Users
    Zelnik said:

    Xenos7 said:

    Zelnik said:


    Argument 1: This game and all content that CA creates is art, and we should be happy to pay money for said art. Criticisms can be ignored if unsightly because ultimately, we have no bearing on what is made or added into this game. FLC are like those wonderful extra strokes on a canvas that add to the whole, and since they don't cost anything to the consumer, being critical of them is forbidden.

    Uhm, no, not really. I believe art should be free exactly because it is art, at least after the author has expired. You should be free to read War and Peace without paying anything. But DLC are a product, so just pay for it. Or not. Who cares. People review bombing optional content when they can simply not purchase it are just idiots and should be ignored.
    tell that to the bookstore owner, I am pretty sure they want you to buy the book instead of stealing it, or squatting in their shop. Or the printers who put it to paper.

    Nothing is free, somehow, somewhere, someone paid for it. Artists who display their art for free tend to have other income, starve, or aren't particularly good artists.
    I said you should be able to *read* it for free, not to own a physical copy for free. And indeed you can. Just go to the library or download an ebook. That's important because art should be accessible to everyone, regardless of wealth or status, being a fundamental part of human experience. A DLC featuring zombie pirates isn't, so you have no right whatsoever to ask for it to be free. That's the price: don't like it, don't buy it. Very simple.
Sign In or Register to comment.