Bugdet for Warhammer 3: don't you see a problem?

Xenos777

Looking at the franchise, I think it's fairly easy to anticipate that WH3 will sell less than its predecessors. There is franchise fatigue after all these years, most popular factions are already out, some players just jumped ship along the way. But it could be also very expensive to produce. Just look at the possibilities

1) Daemons: they have an extremely diverse rosters, with a lot of unique units with no parallel in other races, and a campaign design that must be unique to them. Probably the most expensive race of the trilogy.
2) Ogres: similar problem, a monster heavy race with the standard infantry itself requiring a new skeleton. Surely as expensive as Lizardmen, maybe more.
3) Chaos Dwarfs: here you can save a bit on line units, but there a lot of war machines requiring new models, effects and so on.
4) Cathay or Kislev or Dogs of War: these should be the cheapest, but they need expanded lore and, especially in the case of Cathay, a whole host of new monsters and characters.

So, as I see it, WH3 starts with a big problem even from the design board. It will be difficult to balance the production cost with lower sales. I'm not optimistic at all.

DaGangster#8697

Two sold more than one, there is no evidence they would give it a smaller budget. You think three would sell worse? I will be picking it up for the new (even grander) campaign features alone, to enjoy playing my favorites over again, regardless of what races come with it. If the last two races are any evidence of CA being able to make new unique races, then the ones that come with the third game will be great as well. I'm not looking forward to any of the new races particularly except maybe chaos dwarfs, but I gladly welcome the minimum 4 (probably 5 with a preorder) new enemy types for my favorite factions to fight against.

Xenos777

DaGangster said:

Two sold more than one

Where did you read that?

PTree#4895

WH3 is going to be AWESOME!

Chocolate_Rain

https://steamcharts.com/app/594570

I can't see the problem.

Warhammer 2 is doing way better than Warhammer 1 by a lot.
And let's not forget that the game has still 1 year of new DLC and updates. Warhammer 2 has already outclassed the 1st title.

Warhammer 3 will be even better.

Monogods, Nagash, Kislev, Ogres, Chaos Dwarfs etc...a dream! I'll need the Limited Edition this time.

Xenos777

Chocolate_Rain said:

https://steamcharts.com/app/594570

I can't see the problem.

Warhammer 2 is doing way better than Warhammer 1 by a lot.
And let's not forget that the game has still 1 year of new DLC and updates. Warhammer 2 has already outclassed the 1st title.

Warhammer 3 will be even better.

Monogods, Nagash, Kislev, Ogres, Chaos Dwarfs etc...a dream! I'll need the Limited Edition this time.

???

WH1: all-time peak 111,909
WH2: all-time peak 72,112

How is it doing better?

Chocolate_Rain

Xenos7 said:

Chocolate_Rain said:

https://steamcharts.com/app/594570

I can't see the problem.

Warhammer 2 is doing way better than Warhammer 1 by a lot.
And let's not forget that the game has still 1 year of new DLC and updates. Warhammer 2 has already outclassed the 1st title.

Warhammer 3 will be even better.

Monogods, Nagash, Kislev, Ogres, Chaos Dwarfs etc...a dream! I'll need the Limited Edition this time.

???

WH1: all-time peak 111,909
WH2: all-time peak 72,112

How is it doing better?

That's the peak of the first month. Look all the other months of Warhammer 1 life cycle and compare them with Warhammer 2. The difference is clear. The 2nd title has outclassed the 1st.

Just because the 1st title got more players in its first month doesn't mean people didn't buy nor play the game after that moment.

Then we have the Steam Global Top Sellers of 2018. Warhammer 2 was a Golden Title.
And let's not forget that every time CA drops a DLC the game becomes a Global Top Seller (Vampire Coast).

Also the 1st title got 2 new editions during its life cycle.

Fossoway

I trust CA to manage to build the hype. See what they've done with Norsca and the Vampire Coast for examples, two minor factions that got released with major hype.

Heck, if they throw a massive curveball with a playable Cathay the playerbase will go wild.

davedave1124#4773

Why is it so hard to get hold of sales?

I can see from Steam Spy that the owner figures for both are between 1 and 2 million.

Xenos777

Chocolate_Rain said:

Xenos7 said:

Chocolate_Rain said:

https://steamcharts.com/app/594570

I can't see the problem.

Warhammer 2 is doing way better than Warhammer 1 by a lot.
And let's not forget that the game has still 1 year of new DLC and updates. Warhammer 2 has already outclassed the 1st title.

Warhammer 3 will be even better.

Monogods, Nagash, Kislev, Ogres, Chaos Dwarfs etc...a dream! I'll need the Limited Edition this time.

???

WH1: all-time peak 111,909
WH2: all-time peak 72,112

How is it doing better?

That's the peak of the first month. Look all the other months of Warhammer 1 life cycle and compare them with Warhammer 2. The difference is clear. The 2nd title has outclassed the 1st.

Just because the 1st title got more players in its first month doesn't mean people didn't buy nor play the game after that moment.

Then we have the Steam Global Top Sellers of 2018. Warhammer 2 was a Golden Title.
And let's not forget that every time CA drops a DLC the game becomes a Global Top Seller (Vampire Coast).

Also the 1st title got 2 new editions during its life cycle.

I don't see any of it.

After one month:
WH1: -32.47%
WH2:-38.10%

After six months:
WH1: +76.27%
WH2: -2.64%

I don't understand what you're talking about.

Mad_D0c_#1516

Tww1 sold more copies, I saw on steam spy once before the cut.

But think aboit the grander age of game 1 and it was once in humble bundle. I think game 2 sold more full price copies while gane 1 sold highly in sales. So I would say game 2 was a bigger success. And I think game 2 dlc sold bettter too.

Itharus#3127

Maybe they skimped on 2 because 3 is gonna be so god damned epic that you have a heart attack the first time you play it and see a blood thirster come into the world.

Omega_Warrior

3 is going to be the defacto game for the rest of TWWs lifespan. It's the game that is supposed to get new players to want to buy all those old games and DLC. It's the one they will still be adding stuff to if they want to add later updates like rome got.

There's no way they are just giving up and accepting that it's not going to be as good. Especially with warhammer hype almost eclipsing the historical game's.

That's also why they wont have all monogods. They need a game that's going to appeal to everyone and all the new players that are to come.

Gerardofthetitan

In Game3 we will be able to do this:



That's enough for me to instabuy the game.
Let alone that Game3 will feature the 4 Monogods in all their complete greatness, The Great Game, The Wastelands, the huge Ogre Kingdom's monsters and The Legion of Nagash with Drachenfels!!

Only a fool won't buy it. The hype for Game3 is set.

Goatforce#6625

I would imagine even if game 1 sold more that they wouldn't need to sell as much of game 2 to turn a profit, after all game 1 required the foundations of the entire trilogy to be laid and whilst 2 probably had more unique and challenging models (HPA and Hydra spring to mind) game 1 was CAs first try at developing models that weren't human, horse, dog or elephant. In othere words they had to build up the expertise of tackling more exotic models in game 1 as well as all the foundation work.

Don't think that we can know exactly how well the games have performed comparitively as we don't have access to the specific figures, but both games have done well so I'm not worried about 3, as has been said already the brand has been established so think it should be safe to be optimistic.

psychoak

It's essentially guaranteed that Warhammer I will be the highest selling game of the series, and Warhammer III will be the lowest.

This doesn't, however, mean that Warhammer III will bring the least revenue, because the reason it's a guarantee is that almost everyone who buys Warhammer III, will have Warhammer I. There are plenty of people doing so these days. They pop in to play Warhammer II, and pick up the DLC to go with it, including game one.

Game three will sell for a decade plus, moving millions of copies long after release, and a portion of these will move substantial quantities of DLC, probably at sale prices, but it's a substantial revenue. The combined value of the trilogy is what holds selling power far in excess of any other TW title, Rome II still has substantial sales six years down the road.

Beast_of_Guanyin#8747

I think you overestimate cost. The Ogres may already have their core skeleton thanks to the VC2 hulks. Then there's the monsters 3 of have the same body shape of short back legs powerful front legs. the Thundertusk and Stonehorn only differ in their heads, granted that's a big difference but in terms of asset sharing you'd have to think there's some to be had between the two. The DoC will be expensive, but that's the only hard race to do or the four.

In terms of budget size we simply don't have information on it. I don't think there's a convincing argument for it decreasing or increasing.

Sultschiem#8734

There are a few issues with your thought process here:

- Ogres are not hard to do at all... they do not have flyers, have limited new models, especially compared to lizardmen, ogre-models can be reused for other factions as mercenaries, chaos ogres etc...
- chaos dwarves will be one of the cheapest one to accomplish...its greenskins, dwarves, a bunch of artillery pieces, a few golems and the most difficult ones will be the lamassu, bullcentaurs and demon bulls...but they are all bulls and nothing is super out of the ordinary
- Kislev will be the cheapest one so far, considering that they only require bears as a new model and the rest are reskins
- Daemons of chaos are more difficult....but... compared by how much is saved from the other 3 races, that should not be an issue, both chaos dwarves and kislev would allow enough saving on budget to go full out on daemons, just like how dark elves and high elves saved enough for lizardmen to get that variety of models going

And keep in mind, that there will be unit-packs..so.....yeah, not that worried.

The race packs possible for game 3 also don't seem to be that worrying with potentials of cathayan factions, which are all human-based.

Rolf1989

Isn't it cheaper to create TWW3 compared to 1? I mean, surely they have a lot of experience now and a whole lot of assets.

Seeing as it's completely out of our control I don't worry about it, but as a layman, making a trilogy it seems like a very complicated way to make money. But I'm very happy they decided to do it

talonn#7575

Dude.. you worry too much..

Kandenn

People desperatly wants to create problems and misinformation...

FrostPaw#5051

Now you have concluded your result... what do you suppose you can do about it?

I would just judge the result, play it or don't. Nothing changes.

#326161

Xenos7 said:

Looking at the franchise, I think it's fairly easy to anticipate that WH3 will sell less than its predecessors. There is franchise fatigue after all these years, most popular factions are already out, some players just jumped ship along the way. But it could be also very expensive to produce. Just look at the possibilities

1) Daemons: they have an extremely diverse rosters, with a lot of unique units with no parallel in other races, and a campaign design that must be unique to them. Probably the most expensive race of the trilogy.
2) Ogres: similar problem, a monster heavy race with the standard infantry itself requiring a new skeleton. Surely as expensive as Lizardmen, maybe more.
3) Chaos Dwarfs: here you can save a bit on line units, but there a lot of war machines requiring new models, effects and so on.
4) Cathay or Kislev or Dogs of War: these should be the cheapest, but they need expanded lore and, especially in the case of Cathay, a whole host of new monsters and characters.

So, as I see it, WH3 starts with a big problem even from the design board. It will be difficult to balance the production cost with lower sales. I'm not optimistic at all.

Stop typing an opinion and stating it as fact. You don't speak for everyone, not even for most!

#326161

Xenos7 said:

Looking at the franchise, I think it's fairly easy to anticipate that WH3 will sell less than its predecessors. There is franchise fatigue after all these years, most popular factions are already out, some players just jumped ship along the way. But it could be also very expensive to produce. Just look at the possibilities

1) Daemons: they have an extremely diverse rosters, with a lot of unique units with no parallel in other races, and a campaign design that must be unique to them. Probably the most expensive race of the trilogy.
2) Ogres: similar problem, a monster heavy race with the standard infantry itself requiring a new skeleton. Surely as expensive as Lizardmen, maybe more.
3) Chaos Dwarfs: here you can save a bit on line units, but there a lot of war machines requiring new models, effects and so on.
4) Cathay or Kislev or Dogs of War: these should be the cheapest, but they need expanded lore and, especially in the case of Cathay, a whole host of new monsters and characters.

So, as I see it, WH3 starts with a big problem even from the design board. It will be difficult to balance the production cost with lower sales. I'm not optimistic at all.

Have u also took into consideration all the DLC's of both? WH2 is not even finished yet, allot wait for Araby or DoW or others. The thing also is now, u can have a lot of fun for a long time with just WH1, allot have not even really finished the game with all the replayability and u can still see recent posts of people thinking or asking about WH2 while playing WH1
So we also have the luxury of choice now. In the long run, WH2 will outsell WH1 along with the DLC's. and WH3 have tons of potential.

Beast_of_Guanyin#8747

Rolf1989 said:

Isn't it cheaper to create TWW3 compared to 1? I mean, surely they have a lot of experience now and a whole lot of assets.

Seeing as it's completely out of our control I don't worry about it, but as a layman, making a trilogy it seems like a very complicated way to make money. But I'm very happy they decided to do it

I imagine there must be a huge stock of assets.

It's why I'm not fussed about things getting done. They'll get done.

#326161

Rolf1989 said:

Isn't it cheaper to create TWW3 compared to 1? I mean, surely they have a lot of experience now and a whole lot of assets.

Seeing as it's completely out of our control I don't worry about it, but as a layman, making a trilogy it seems like a very complicated way to make money. But I'm very happy they decided to do it

I Believe so, some things depend on what they plan to do, if they want to overhaul the mortal empires map to have more or all races/factions involved and make a new map like tww2

#21546

DaGangster said:

Two sold more than one, there is no evidence they would give it a smaller budget. You think three would sell worse? I will be picking it up for the new (even grander) campaign features alone, to enjoy playing my favorites over again, regardless of what races come with it. If the last two races are any evidence of CA being able to make new unique races, then the ones that come with the third game will be great as well. I'm not looking forward to any of the new races particularly except maybe chaos dwarfs, but I gladly welcome the minimum 4 (probably 5 with a preorder) new enemy types for my favorite factions to fight against.

Really ? In steamspy they are in the same bracket, so idk which one sold more.

#21546

Honestly I like how big this Franchise has made CA, dont ge me wrong CA was still a pretty big company, but I always felt like they were niche, barely anybody I know playef total war, and with warhammer it became some of steam best selling game and it has become mainstream and one of the biggest name in strategy with Civilisation

Blaeys#7037

Of course WH1 has sold more copies than WH2. It has been out longer, there have been more sales, there is an active incentive built into game 2 to buy game 1, etc.

None of that is a bad thing - and it definitely doesn't reflect negatively on game 2. The brand is stronger than it has ever been - and as games 1 and 2 go on sale, are potentially packaged together in promotional program, etc, promotions ramp up for game 3, it will only get stronger.

Remember, revenue for sales for games 1 and 2 go to the same place revenue for game 3 will go. Game 2 was - just one day last week - the top selling game in Steam (with game 1 close behind). They are getting new customers, new fans and more money related to this franchise every week.


You cant look at it game by game - but rather as a whole. And, as a whole, TW:WH is blockbuster hit no matter how you try to twist it around.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Bonutz#3949

We don't know what CA's budget for game 3 is. I'd imagine it would be higher since this is the final game of the trilogy but I'm just speculating. Not really a solid argument point either way.

Secondly, I haven't seen any credible evidence suggesting that game 3 will sell worse then the other two. Quite the contrary actually. This franchise is maintaining a upward rate of popularity and increasing based on the fact that Warhammer 2 and it's DLC's are constant best sellers on Steam.