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

What the community want from CA

2»

Comments

  • ArsenicArsenic Posts: 3,801Registered Users
    All fine and good, but CA have shown no sign of listening on any of these points so far.

    Personally, am entering "You know what? Stuff your game." territory, which considering the amount of money I've spent on it is no small thing to do.

    There is no way on Earth that I will pre-order or even purchase the next game for years, unless CA categorically states it has far superior post-launch support than TWW2 did, or if it gives complete rosters on release.



  • Grom_the_PaunchGrom_the_Paunch Posts: 882Registered Users
    Arsenic said:

    All fine and good, but CA have shown no sign of listening on any of these points so far.

    Personally, am entering "You know what? Stuff your game." territory, which considering the amount of money I've spent on it is no small thing to do.

    There is no way on Earth that I will pre-order or even purchase the next game for years, unless CA categorically states it has far superior post-launch support than TWW2 did, or if it gives complete rosters on release.

    That's understandable. I shouldn't have bought Vampire Coast DLC. Couldn't get into it. Can't bring myself to play anymore until the game gets a real facelift.

    I'm of more of a "Wait and see what happens in the future" frame of mind, now. No more pre-orders from me.

    I'm planning to pitch in around here a bit, regardless, in the vain hope I amuse a few folks or contribute something... anything... to the betterment of this game as a whole.

    Hope you do the same. We would miss that dry wit.
  • KronusXKronusX Posts: 1,322Registered Users
    Arsenic said:

    All fine and good, but CA have shown no sign of listening on any of these points so far.

    Personally, am entering "You know what? Stuff your game." territory, which considering the amount of money I've spent on it is no small thing to do.

    There is no way on Earth that I will pre-order or even purchase the next game for years, unless CA categorically states it has far superior post-launch support than TWW2 did, or if it gives complete rosters on release.

    I am starting to be in the same camp as you. I am getting sick of their ''communication attempt'', since I cannot call a random post on reddit in the middle of no where as communication, so at this point I will wait and see. They tricked me with WH2 and the DLCs, but ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!.

    If I feel like playing something asian, I'll go back to shogun 2 and for my saxon/viking era, I have ancestor's legacy and CK2.
  • Urza1234Urza1234 Posts: 212Registered Users
    edited January 11
    I'm a little tired of threads being closed just because they're discussing DLC, patches and communication, and DLC,
    patch, and communication policy.
    Its not off-topic, just because it isnt garble about this random character or that random unit.

    Its very directly related to TW:WH, and much of it at least toes the line of not being bashing or sniping.

    I wouldnt say anything, but its a looooot of threads being shut down. If your customers are vocally dissatisfied, I dont really see how censorship will solve anything.
    Shutting down actual bashing I get, but much of what gets shut down is 90% just disgruntled speculation. You can only candy-coat displeasure so much. If a particular user is actually being toxic, maybe just remove those posts rather than shutting down the whole discussion in which most participants are civil.

    What we want: Content and some communication
    What we get: No content and some censorship

    freakin stellar
  • RockNRolla92RockNRolla92 Posts: 583Registered Users
    KronusX said:

    Arsenic said:

    All fine and good, but CA have shown no sign of listening on any of these points so far.

    Personally, am entering "You know what? Stuff your game." territory, which considering the amount of money I've spent on it is no small thing to do.

    There is no way on Earth that I will pre-order or even purchase the next game for years, unless CA categorically states it has far superior post-launch support than TWW2 did, or if it gives complete rosters on release.

    I am starting to be in the same camp as you. I am getting sick of their ''communication attempt'', since I cannot call a random post on reddit in the middle of no where as communication, so at this point I will wait and see. They tricked me with WH2 and the DLCs, but ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!.

    If I feel like playing something asian, I'll go back to shogun 2 and for my saxon/viking era, I have ancestor's legacy and CK2.
    Same here.

    I really don't like the whole only reply to random comments in Reddit.

    Reddit is fine but if you are going to say things like no dlc until after 3 Kingdoms or no MLNW this year then atleast make an official post about it even if it is in Reddit.

    Oh and a roadmap would be nice, doesn't have to have dates but even a total war in general road map that say we plan to release these things in this order this year.

    Updating the FLC array as well would be nice

    I'm fed up of the excuse "We don't want to say anything because it might change". This doesn't work, if you actually communicate then people can deal with delays etc. Otherwise the community just ends up as a short tempered ball of rage.

    Fair enough the community gets far too toxic now and then but the last year or so the communication has been rubbish which is clearly not working

    I've had plenty experience of clients taking a fit because of delay due to them having no information on the progress of things. They are also far happier to except delays when you actually keep them up to date.
  • LuciferLucifer Member England U.KPosts: 1,759Registered Users
    I've been a TW fan myself for a long time, but I still don't think that gives me the right to dictate policy to a company I buy from. I'm a customer, not a shareholder.

    I don't want any special rights or treatment, but I do want mountains of dlc, just do it right and take your time getting it right.


    "Surrender and serve me in life, or die and slave for me in death." - Vlad von Carstein

    My steam workshop Warhammer II mods
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Posts: 16,121Registered Users
    Lucifer said:

    I've been a TW fan myself for a long time, but I still don't think that gives me the right to dictate policy to a company I buy from. I'm a customer, not a shareholder.

    I don't want any special rights or treatment, but I do want mountains of dlc, just do it right and take your time getting it right.

    Where does CA get their moneys without customers? That alone is enough.

  • XxXScorpionXxXXxXScorpionXxX Posts: 265Registered Users
    Lucifer said:

    I've been a TW fan myself for a long time, but I still don't think that gives me the right to dictate policy to a company I buy from. I'm a customer, not a shareholder.

    I don't want any special rights or treatment, but I do want mountains of dlc, just do it right and take your time getting it right.

    The thing is a company should never listen to shareholders, shareholders aren't the ones paying the bills. They're abotu the worst people to take direction from because they're so short sighted with gains they flat out ignore long term stability. You don't think Nintendo's investors would want loot boxes implemented in Smash Bros? No. You listen to the fans, you make the game THEY want, they buy it, you make profit shareholders make profit, thats how it works. There is a lot and I mean a lot of legal leeway that companies have in making choices even if shareholders disapprove.
  • doclumbagodoclumbago Posts: 1,019Registered Users
    The main problem is the "only patches and FLC with major updates policy of CA".
    There is only so much that the public department can talk about with 3-6 months inbetween
    content. so they´re not really to be blamed for the silence.

    Also, CA does listen to the crowd.
    They don´t implement all of it, of course but Island Battles, Dwarves got Forging, Heroes in garrisons, skilltree updates, these were all demanded here first.
  • Vanilla_GorillaVanilla_Gorilla Posts: 12,118Registered Users
    edited January 11
    @XxXScorpionXxX That's fundamentally incorrect. Some shareholders want maximum short term profits, some don't. I'd suggest the majority are like me; they want long term growth and solid, stable, sustainable increases in profit. I'd suggest only speculators want strong short term profits.
    Lucifer said:

    I've been a TW fan myself for a long time, but I still don't think that gives me the right to dictate policy to a company I buy from. I'm a customer, not a shareholder.

    I don't want any special rights or treatment, but I do want mountains of dlc, just do it right and take your time getting it right.

    Pretty much how I feel.

    Either you like a company's product or you don't. Advocate as much as you like, but you buy what you buy. TWW2 for example is a complete game. CA's communication may be poor but that doesn't entitle us to free stuff. Folk can advocate for it as much as they like, but there's no right, no entitlement to it.
    Post edited by Vanilla_Gorilla on
    Game 3 must have variety in its core races. Ogres, Chaos Dwarfs, Kislev, and Demons of Chaos in its full iconic, glorious, undivided glory.
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Posts: 16,121Registered Users

    @Ephraim_Dalton That's fundamentally incorrect. Some shareholders want maximum short term profits, some don't. I'd suggest the majority are like me; they want long term growth and solid, stable, sustainable increases in profit. I'd suggest only speculators want strong short term profits.

    Lucifer said:

    I've been a TW fan myself for a long time, but I still don't think that gives me the right to dictate policy to a company I buy from. I'm a customer, not a shareholder.

    I don't want any special rights or treatment, but I do want mountains of dlc, just do it right and take your time getting it right.

    Pretty much how I feel.

    Either you like a company's product or you don't. Advocate as much as you like, but you buy what you buy. TWW2 for example is a complete game. CA's communication may be poor but that doesn't entitle us to free stuff. Folk can advocate for it as much as they like, but there's no right, no entitlement to it.
    LoL, you are quoting the wrong person.

  • XxXScorpionXxXXxXScorpionXxX Posts: 265Registered Users
    edited January 11

    @XxXScorpionXxX That's fundamentally incorrect. Some shareholders want maximum short term profits, some don't. I'd suggest the majority are like me; they want long term growth and solid, stable, sustainable increases in profit. I'd suggest only speculators want strong short term profits.

    I would say you overestimate most shareholders by far. How many companies have fallen into ruin, how many discarded their reputations, specially in the video game industry, in order to bend over backwards to please share holders. Do not lie to me a tell me that loot boxes aren't being added for them but for us. Do not lie to my face and tell me the "games as a service" model wasn't specifically designed to be anti-consumer while maximizing short term profits at the expense of the experience. Speaking of customers in terms of whales, dolphins and minnows. No sir, in my 4 years of education in a college of business and my lifetime of observations I have learned something of the trade. Share holders would see companies treat the costumers as cattle and developers as expendable assets to be used, abused and discarded. Who suffered for the debacle of Star Wars Battlefront 2? Not the share holders, not the executives, but the developers who were rewarded with layoffs for their loyal attempts to implement a pay 2 win mechanic and damage control for it with PR. Is it not the customers who pay the price for the failings of Bethesda and Fallout 76, or am I to believe a rushed development cycle to ensure its release for the Q4 filings despite the games obvious lack of completion was not pressure from the investors. And yes even with CA putting out more products with fewer staff in order to increase profits, because as my favorite games journalist Jim Stirling often says, its not enough for a company to make a lot of money, they must make ALL of the money.

    In some sense I do feel a great deal of sympathy to the developers of CA or any studio, constantly pulled between investors and consumers being asked to favor one at the expense of the other but as I said in the post you quoted before and which I'll say yet again a company should chiefly listen to consumers and NOT shareholders. If consumers are happy the company will always operate in the black provided its well managed. If investors want get rich quick schemes they can go to Las Vegas.
  • psychoakpsychoak Posts: 1,801Registered Users
    Publicly traded companies are... problematic...

    However, you're both arguing extremes. It's certainly not only speculators that want short term gains, as evinced by the many companies who's leadership is decapitated by the board members over short term losses. It's most definitely not a totality either. There are plenty of slow growth monsters out there that have been running along nicely for decades, and the money now fools don't ever end up on their boards because they don't grow fast enough.

    I expect this is not the actions of shareholders regardless. Even the board of directors is pretty far up the food chain to be nixing a development schedule for a single project at a subsidiary. If they've been cut off at the knees, it's probably more of a direct management decision, vp level maybe.
  • Vanilla_GorillaVanilla_Gorilla Posts: 12,118Registered Users

    @XxXScorpionXxX That's fundamentally incorrect. Some shareholders want maximum short term profits, some don't. I'd suggest the majority are like me; they want long term growth and solid, stable, sustainable increases in profit. I'd suggest only speculators want strong short term profits.

    I would say you overestimate most shareholders by far. How many companies have fallen into ruin, how many discarded their reputations, specially in the video game industry, in order to bend over backwards to please share holders. Do not lie to me a tell me that loot boxes aren't being added for them but for us. Do not lie to my face and tell me the "games as a service" model wasn't specifically designed to be anti-consumer while maximizing short term profits at the expense of the experience. Speaking of customers in terms of whales, dolphins and minnows. No sir, in my 4 years of education in a college of business and my lifetime of observations I have learned something of the trade. Share holders would see companies treat the costumers as cattle and developers as expendable assets to be used, abused and discarded. Who suffered for the debacle of Star Wars Battlefront 2? Not the share holders, not the executives, but the developers who were rewarded with layoffs for their loyal attempts to implement a pay 2 win mechanic and damage control for it with PR. Is it not the customers who pay the price for the failings of Bethesda and Fallout 76, or am I to believe a rushed development cycle to ensure its release for the Q4 filings despite the games obvious lack of completion was not pressure from the investors. And yes even with CA putting out more products with fewer staff in order to increase profits, because as my favorite games journalist Jim Stirling often says, its not enough for a company to make a lot of money, they must make ALL of the money.

    In some sense I do feel a great deal of sympathy to the developers of CA or any studio, constantly pulled between investors and consumers being asked to favor one at the expense of the other but as I said in the post you quoted before and which I'll say yet again a company should chiefly listen to consumers and NOT shareholders. If consumers are happy the company will always operate in the black provided its well managed. If investors want get rich quick schemes they can go to Las Vegas.
    Share holders absolutely do suffer when profits go down, profit is the whole motivation of being a share holder. SWBF2 didn't make as much profit as it could have therefore it was bad for shareholders. I can't speak for other share holders but I want long term growth and consistent, stable, growing profits. A company I own shares in doing something morally wrong doesn't bother me from a personal standpoint, it bothers me because it costs me money. The same applies to the whole; in general poor behaviour is punished. It's why companies make efforts towards social causes; they increase profit.

    *Shrug* Maybe I do overestimate share holders as a whole. I did a bit of research and the average holding time is roughly 7 months. Regardless I think you put too much blame on share holders who are largely silent, and too much on the people in charge; executives. It was an executive who wanted Ric Flair to change to go bald and dress like a Spartan. It's an executive who puts the rubber stamp on loot boxes and pay to win.
    Game 3 must have variety in its core races. Ogres, Chaos Dwarfs, Kislev, and Demons of Chaos in its full iconic, glorious, undivided glory.
  • BillyRuffianBillyRuffian Moderator UKPosts: 34,794Registered Users, Moderators, Knights
    This seems to have devolved into a business policy discussion so moved to General Chat.

    "He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts - for support rather than illumination." (Andrew Lang)

    |Takeda| Yokota Takatoshi

    Forum Terms and Conditions: - https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/172193/forum-terms-and-conditions#latest

    "We wunt be druv". iot6pc7dn8qs.png
2»
Sign In or Register to comment.