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

TWW2 - Old World DLC. TWW3 and campaign packs in future.

Frank9945671Frank9945671 Posts: 83Registered Users
edited April 14 in General Discussion
I guess TWW 3 races will got their rituals like TWW2 races. If I'm right, game 1 races will be a losers, lets say. I want to suggest some kind of Old Wolrd DLC for all races including Wood Elves and Beastmen and Norsca. Rites is TWW2 core feature, so DLC with rites for Old World races makes sense, I guess.

So, I have two options:

Option.1.The best one. 4 rituals + 1-2 new units per race without new LLs - this is a good deal, probably the best one, because not expensive and easy to release(if CA will add 2 new LLs for game 1 core races(like Empire, Bretonnia) to make 4 LLs as minimum, that can cost like Lord Packs maybe or more I dunno and actually don't care about price).


Option.2.Not so good at some point. CA can make 4 rituals, 1 new LL with new faction and 1 new unit per race(except Chaos) who can be included in Vortex campaign, I'm not really good in lore, but I guess CA can find some good options here(who can be implemented), maybe community can helps, I dunno. In total we will get 8 new LLs and 8 units for Old World factions(but again, not for Chaos, I guess CA already rewoks them for game 3, maybe daemon of Chaos will be a core race) and everyone will be happy, I belive so. I don't know how much DLC like that can cost, I'm ready to buy it with any cost.

What do you think about this kind of DLC, guys?

After TWW3:

After game 3 and all DLCs CA can try to make more Lord Packs for all races and maybe Campaign packs with several playable factions-races, not just one like it was in game 1 DLCs. Maps in campaigns pack from game 1 was amazing - problem lays in playable factions\races, I belive so, as player I want to see more options here. CA just need to find some conflicts between several races, pick playable lords and give to everyone their goals, they can choose any period of Warhammer Fantasy history, not only after coronation of Karl Franz.

By the way, look at Wood Elves campaign for game 1. If CA will make playable Red Duke, add some lord(s) for Bretonnia and Orcs(and maybe Wood Elves) and make Beastman playable this can became a really interesting campaign. Also they can add some random events like invasion of Chaos daemons or somebody else and other events. For start they can just rework this campaign like I said or better.

What do you think about Campaign pack like this?

I'm not really good in English, sorry.
Post edited by Frank9945671 on
«1

Comments

  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Posts: 1,453Registered Users
    When CA talked about 'wanting everything' in the Warhammer trilogy, including a massive combined campaign, this is what really triggered the pre-release hype. Attila had just bombed and Rome 2 needed a relaunch, the enthusiasm for Warhammer wasn't there despite it being a long-awaited cross-over event for Total War. The High King Edition only had five-thousand boxes produced, yet months after they went on sale they still hadn't sold-out. They should have been gone in the first two weeks.

    What many of us thought was going to happen when the 'combined campaign' announcement triggered the proper hype-train, was they were going to repeat the excellent decision made with Shogun 2 and Fall of The Samurai. FoTS was a stand-alone expansion, but unlike any other such stand-alone I can think of it would combine with S2 into the same game. This extended the post-release support window for S2 and improvements introduced in FoTS were now retro-actively put into it. So with Warhammer, there would be continuing retro-fitted improvement to each game in the series as later games got released, with them all eventually combining into one game, with each campaign being improved and available in a menu, alongside the huge combined campaign.

    When the Norsca fiasco happened, it basically revealed this is not what CA were doing with the Warhammer games. My alarm bell was ringing when they announced Mortal Empires for game 2, as this seemed a bit early to implement a combined campaign and the result is extremely disappointing. They did not see the combined campaign as the 1# selling-point of the trilogy, but as 'something extra' that they were oh-so generously giving us. I hope the incident and the response to it kicked them out of complacency, but we've heard next to nothing and they have been preoccupied with 3K, which is rather strange when supposedly there are 'separate teams' working on separate projects.

    So yeah, lots of people have already got excited for this, but it seems CA were never actually working on it.
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Posts: 3,128Registered Users
    The chances are the main races in game 3 may get something different to rites, the Chaos Dwarfs for example may get an engineer/demonic workshop.

    I think they'll do larger DLCs due to the wait time which I'm happy with. Once they're all done then we could get an End Times or even a further map of Ind, Cathay, Nippon.. etc.
  • Frank9945671Frank9945671 Posts: 83Registered Users

    The chances are the main races in game 3 may get something different to rites, the Chaos Dwarfs for example may get an engineer/demonic workshop.

    Maybe you're right. Developers may add something different for game 3 races. But I still think rites for game 1 races with some extra stuff would be nice, not necessary, but good\useful. Maybe I mistake. I just suggested some stuff, because interested in more content and ready to buy it.
  • Sir_GodspeedSir_Godspeed Posts: 1,035Registered Users
    edited April 14
    My impression is that the Rites were the result of some lengthy deliberation, and a bit of a compromise:

    1.) It fits the races of WH2, as they are all magic-heavy.
    2.) It fits the Vortex CAmpaign, as it is focused around a large magical plot device.

    And perhaps most importantly:

    3.) At the time, it was perhaps seen as a cost-effective way of giving each race something extra without delving into overly ambitious unique faction mechanics. It was a mechanic common to all the races, but wich offered a lot of variety.
    3.5.) This aversion to adding a lot of unique faction mechanics is now largely gone, as evidenced fromt the latest DLCs.
    Post edited by Sir_Godspeed on
  • NyxilisNyxilis Posts: 2,709Registered Users
    I don't really want rites for every race. They do not thematically fit every race of Warhammer. They've added new mechanics to old world races that I'd rather have than rites. And if they gave me choices between various other map mechanics rather than rites I'd probably be choosing those.

    They've also said that rites were something they wanted for Warhammer II races to let them stand apart. Give them something that themes to this game and Warhammer II races are all magically saturated so they fit.

    They may not even really employ them in Warhammer III or only to those that make sense. But if they gave Ogres an entirely different mechanic in place of rites I wouldn't cry at all.
  • AbmongAbmong Posts: 680Registered Users
    I think CA will eventually update the old world races for game3 when the main releases are out. Doubtful they’ll actually update games1&2 once games3 is out. Games1&2 becomes glorified DLC packs at that point. Any updates for existing factions will be for game3 ME since that will eventually be the real game campaigns for each race.
    Total War: Warhammer IV - Cathay, Ind, Nippon, Khuresh (+ Lost Vampire Bloodlines, Monkey kingdom DLC) :#
  • FungusHoundFungusHound Posts: 1,822Registered Users
    Nyxilis said:

    But if they gave Ogres an entirely different mechanic in place of rites I wouldn't cry at all.

    Ogres need a full on cooking minigame.
  • NyxilisNyxilis Posts: 2,709Registered Users

    Nyxilis said:

    But if they gave Ogres an entirely different mechanic in place of rites I wouldn't cry at all.

    Ogres need a full on cooking minigame.
    Based off what you're killing!

    You need a dash of Orc garnish to finish that Lizard fillet...
  • Sir_GodspeedSir_Godspeed Posts: 1,035Registered Users

    Nyxilis said:

    But if they gave Ogres an entirely different mechanic in place of rites I wouldn't cry at all.

    Ogres need a full on cooking minigame.
    Butcher Mama!
  • AbmongAbmong Posts: 680Registered Users

    Nyxilis said:

    But if they gave Ogres an entirely different mechanic in place of rites I wouldn't cry at all.

    Ogres need a full on cooking minigame.
    Oh at least some ingredient gathering quests for the more powerful gut magics.
    Total War: Warhammer IV - Cathay, Ind, Nippon, Khuresh (+ Lost Vampire Bloodlines, Monkey kingdom DLC) :#
  • ConstantineZAynConstantineZAyn Posts: 63Registered Users
    How would they do DLC for game 1 races in game 2 when owners of game 2 might not even own game 1? Some people might buy the DLC and literally get nothing since they can't play mortal empires. There's already enough negative rage reviews about how they need to buy game 1 to get the 'full experience'.

    The same problem exists for the idea of cross-game DLC which is frequently being suggested. How do people not get this? TWW2 is a seperate game and mortal empires is treated as a little ''bonus'' for game 1 owners. Which is nonsense because the combined map is the point of the trilogy.
  • NyxilisNyxilis Posts: 2,709Registered Users

    How would they do DLC for game 1 races in game 2 when owners of game 2 might not even own game 1? Some people might buy the DLC and literally get nothing since they can't play mortal empires. There's already enough negative rage reviews about how they need to buy game 1 to get the 'full experience'.

    The same problem exists for the idea of cross-game DLC which is frequently being suggested. How do people not get this? TWW2 is a seperate game and mortal empires is treated as a little ''bonus'' for game 1 owners. Which is nonsense because the combined map is the point of the trilogy.

    They've talked about cross faction dlc before. Like Empire vs Skaven, or HE vs Greenskins. Which would have interest for some.

    But first off, I don't want to be dragged back because of a minority of players who only have the one. Especially given that game one routinely goes on sale for $15 and gives you 5 races for that. They already do Mortal Empires and I don't rightly care about that need. Any less than I care about it for the final one for game 3.

    And really, their rage would be just drowned out by the joy of the players who are actively calling for it.
  • ConstantineZAynConstantineZAyn Posts: 63Registered Users
    Doesn't really matter if they said it. I don't see how it is ethical to sell DLC that requires another game to be usable, and neither will the casual players.

    This issue will be even worse in game 3 as new players will realize they need to buy two more games to get the combined map. This makes the combined map accessible to a possibly small number of people, which isn't good for long term support either.

    I think the best way to handle it is to make the combined map accessible to all players, and then let them use the DLC and lords they own on it. That means if there's a high elf vs orc cross-game pack, the two lords you get will be usable on the campaign map. But if you want the other orc lords you will need to own game 1.
  • NyxilisNyxilis Posts: 2,709Registered Users

    Doesn't really matter if they said it. I don't see how it is ethical to sell DLC that requires another game to be usable, and neither will the casual players.

    This issue will be even worse in game 3 as new players will realize they need to buy two more games to get the combined map. This makes the combined map accessible to a possibly small number of people, which isn't good for long term support either.

    I think the best way to handle it is to make the combined map accessible to all players, and then let them use the DLC and lords they own on it. That means if there's a high elf vs orc cross-game pack, the two lords you get will be usable on the campaign map. But if you want the other orc lords you will need to own game 1.

    I would say the overwhelming majority of players already have game 1, that includes casual players.

    They've already shown their willing to upset that group with Mortal Empires and have made every mention they plan to do the same in game 3 further putting that group aside.

    The blowback for needing game 1 for Mortal Empires has largely been minimum. Nothing that seems to be remotely giving them pause on that policy. Compared to the blowback they got for Warriors of Chaos and why they changed things with Norsca. Or the blowback for Queen and the Crone which has lead to P&W being better.

    And I will say that the majority of hardcore or even casual players were told do you want DLC that affects the Empire, the most popular game 1 faction vs a game 2 or 3 faction or not? They'd say yes.
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Posts: 3,128Registered Users

    Doesn't really matter if they said it. I don't see how it is ethical to sell DLC that requires another game to be usable, and neither will the casual players.

    This issue will be even worse in game 3 as new players will realize they need to buy two more games to get the combined map. This makes the combined map accessible to a possibly small number of people, which isn't good for long term support either.

    I think the best way to handle it is to make the combined map accessible to all players, and then let them use the DLC and lords they own on it. That means if there's a high elf vs orc cross-game pack, the two lords you get will be usable on the campaign map. But if you want the other orc lords you will need to own game 1.

    This is one point I've never understood. Why do you think a player who pays for one game should get a map that encompasses 2 or 3? If I paid for the Paradox DLC (£7.99!) that allows you to carry on a game between games I wouldn't expect to get a £34.99 game after paying £7.99, so I certainly wouldn't expect 1 or 2 AAA titles for free.

    The ME campaign is what people wanted, I hated the fact that new DLC didn't always add to the original title, it's now sorted.
  • AbmongAbmong Posts: 680Registered Users
    edited April 14
    Cross game DLC wouldn’t be a problem. They just get to use the LL and units associated with the game they own. The other will be locked until they buy the other game.

    Can’t expect to get access to stuff others have paid for for free.

    That or CA may just start doing single LL in one pack but release two packs at the same time. And maybe give discounts to those who buys both as a more traditional rivals Lords Pack. It’t not rocket science.
    Total War: Warhammer IV - Cathay, Ind, Nippon, Khuresh (+ Lost Vampire Bloodlines, Monkey kingdom DLC) :#
  • ConstantineZAynConstantineZAyn Posts: 63Registered Users

    Doesn't really matter if they said it. I don't see how it is ethical to sell DLC that requires another game to be usable, and neither will the casual players.

    This issue will be even worse in game 3 as new players will realize they need to buy two more games to get the combined map. This makes the combined map accessible to a possibly small number of people, which isn't good for long term support either.

    I think the best way to handle it is to make the combined map accessible to all players, and then let them use the DLC and lords they own on it. That means if there's a high elf vs orc cross-game pack, the two lords you get will be usable on the campaign map. But if you want the other orc lords you will need to own game 1.

    This is one point I've never understood. Why do you think a player who pays for one game should get a map that encompasses 2 or 3? If I paid for the Paradox DLC (£7.99!) that allows you to carry on a game between games I wouldn't expect to get a £34.99 game after paying £7.99, so I certainly wouldn't expect 1 or 2 AAA titles for free.

    The ME campaign is what people wanted, I hated the fact that new DLC didn't always add to the original title, it's now sorted.
    I never said you get the second or first title for free. I said the map should be accessible to all players. The cost of game 1 is not just the map, it is also the factions. Let game 2 players access game 2 factions on mortal empires. Then, bring the possibility of cross game DLC that people who buy it can actually use. It's unethical to sell content that may not even be usable, which is obviously why they have not done it.

    Clearly comprehension is missing within this community.
  • NyxilisNyxilis Posts: 2,709Registered Users

    Doesn't really matter if they said it. I don't see how it is ethical to sell DLC that requires another game to be usable, and neither will the casual players.

    This issue will be even worse in game 3 as new players will realize they need to buy two more games to get the combined map. This makes the combined map accessible to a possibly small number of people, which isn't good for long term support either.

    I think the best way to handle it is to make the combined map accessible to all players, and then let them use the DLC and lords they own on it. That means if there's a high elf vs orc cross-game pack, the two lords you get will be usable on the campaign map. But if you want the other orc lords you will need to own game 1.

    This is one point I've never understood. Why do you think a player who pays for one game should get a map that encompasses 2 or 3? If I paid for the Paradox DLC (£7.99!) that allows you to carry on a game between games I wouldn't expect to get a £34.99 game after paying £7.99, so I certainly wouldn't expect 1 or 2 AAA titles for free.

    The ME campaign is what people wanted, I hated the fact that new DLC didn't always add to the original title, it's now sorted.
    I never said you get the second or first title for free. I said the map should be accessible to all players. The cost of game 1 is not just the map, it is also the factions. Let game 2 players access game 2 factions on mortal empires. Then, bring the possibility of cross game DLC that people who buy it can actually use. It's unethical to sell content that may not even be usable, which is obviously why they have not done it.

    Clearly comprehension is missing within this community.
    Do not equate one person misunderstanding to the whole for some insult intent to devalue the whole whom opposes you. It's misleading, and really, foul.

    I know what you're saying and I do not agree.

    If it's not useable to you, don't buy it. Majority of players want it, and will buy it. Since you seem to ignore the question do you think the most popular faction of game 1 wouldn't' get sales here? You consider the usual sale price of $15 bucks for game one that gets you 5 races that big of a paywall?

    Game 1 is virtually just DLC for game 2 now, and when game 3 comes out, it will virtually be the same.
  • ConstantineZAynConstantineZAyn Posts: 63Registered Users
    Nyxilis said:

    Doesn't really matter if they said it. I don't see how it is ethical to sell DLC that requires another game to be usable, and neither will the casual players.

    This issue will be even worse in game 3 as new players will realize they need to buy two more games to get the combined map. This makes the combined map accessible to a possibly small number of people, which isn't good for long term support either.

    I think the best way to handle it is to make the combined map accessible to all players, and then let them use the DLC and lords they own on it. That means if there's a high elf vs orc cross-game pack, the two lords you get will be usable on the campaign map. But if you want the other orc lords you will need to own game 1.

    This is one point I've never understood. Why do you think a player who pays for one game should get a map that encompasses 2 or 3? If I paid for the Paradox DLC (£7.99!) that allows you to carry on a game between games I wouldn't expect to get a £34.99 game after paying £7.99, so I certainly wouldn't expect 1 or 2 AAA titles for free.

    The ME campaign is what people wanted, I hated the fact that new DLC didn't always add to the original title, it's now sorted.
    I never said you get the second or first title for free. I said the map should be accessible to all players. The cost of game 1 is not just the map, it is also the factions. Let game 2 players access game 2 factions on mortal empires. Then, bring the possibility of cross game DLC that people who buy it can actually use. It's unethical to sell content that may not even be usable, which is obviously why they have not done it.

    Clearly comprehension is missing within this community.
    Do not equate one person misunderstanding to the whole for some insult intent to devalue the whole whom opposes you. It's misleading, and really, foul.

    I know what you're saying and I do not agree.

    If it's not useable to you, don't buy it. Majority of players want it, and will buy it. Since you seem to ignore the question do you think the most popular faction of game 1 wouldn't' get sales here? You consider the usual sale price of $15 bucks for game one that gets you 5 races that big of a paywall?

    Game 1 is virtually just DLC for game 2 now, and when game 3 comes out, it will virtually be the same.
    There's now three people on this thread who think that it's acceptable to let players buy DLC they can't even use. Which is unheard of in any business or the gaming industry. So it's not far-fetched to say that this is likely an oblivious echo chamber.

    You keep claiming that most game 2 owners own all the content. There are no statistics to back that up. The small number of hardcore players on this forum do not reflect all of the people who own game 2.

    You keep bringing up the price of 15$ bucks. I just looked it up and game 1 costs 71CAD on both steam and humble bundle. So, tell me where you are getting this price from?

    If game 1 received a price reduction I wouldn't even be making these posts. But it hasn't. You claim it's DLC but it is priced as a full game (even when it's three years old). So,coming full circle, I tell you again, why should someone be able to buy a product, just to find out they have to go and buy another full priced game just to use it? It's completely unacceptable.
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Posts: 3,128Registered Users

    Doesn't really matter if they said it. I don't see how it is ethical to sell DLC that requires another game to be usable, and neither will the casual players.

    This issue will be even worse in game 3 as new players will realize they need to buy two more games to get the combined map. This makes the combined map accessible to a possibly small number of people, which isn't good for long term support either.

    I think the best way to handle it is to make the combined map accessible to all players, and then let them use the DLC and lords they own on it. That means if there's a high elf vs orc cross-game pack, the two lords you get will be usable on the campaign map. But if you want the other orc lords you will need to own game 1.

    This is one point I've never understood. Why do you think a player who pays for one game should get a map that encompasses 2 or 3? If I paid for the Paradox DLC (£7.99!) that allows you to carry on a game between games I wouldn't expect to get a £34.99 game after paying £7.99, so I certainly wouldn't expect 1 or 2 AAA titles for free.

    The ME campaign is what people wanted, I hated the fact that new DLC didn't always add to the original title, it's now sorted.
    I never said you get the second or first title for free. I said the map should be accessible to all players. The cost of game 1 is not just the map, it is also the factions. Let game 2 players access game 2 factions on mortal empires. Then, bring the possibility of cross game DLC that people who buy it can actually use. It's unethical to sell content that may not even be usable, which is obviously why they have not done it.

    Clearly comprehension is missing within this community.
    They didn't sell unusable content. The ME map is free and the map itself, the elven, Skaven, LM cities, models are paid for via game 2. The entitlement on this thread is painful to watch. If you buy game 1 you can fight but not play the DLC units because they are tied to game 1. The same with game 2, you can fight their DLC units, but, if you didn't pay for a particular games commodities then why do you think CA are obliged to hand them over?

    At no point did I ever expect CA to give the full map for only partial owners.

    Clearly the entitlement is in abundance on this thread.
  • ConstantineZAynConstantineZAyn Posts: 63Registered Users
    edited April 14

    Doesn't really matter if they said it. I don't see how it is ethical to sell DLC that requires another game to be usable, and neither will the casual players.

    This issue will be even worse in game 3 as new players will realize they need to buy two more games to get the combined map. This makes the combined map accessible to a possibly small number of people, which isn't good for long term support either.

    I think the best way to handle it is to make the combined map accessible to all players, and then let them use the DLC and lords they own on it. That means if there's a high elf vs orc cross-game pack, the two lords you get will be usable on the campaign map. But if you want the other orc lords you will need to own game 1.

    This is one point I've never understood. Why do you think a player who pays for one game should get a map that encompasses 2 or 3? If I paid for the Paradox DLC (£7.99!) that allows you to carry on a game between games I wouldn't expect to get a £34.99 game after paying £7.99, so I certainly wouldn't expect 1 or 2 AAA titles for free.

    The ME campaign is what people wanted, I hated the fact that new DLC didn't always add to the original title, it's now sorted.
    I never said you get the second or first title for free. I said the map should be accessible to all players. The cost of game 1 is not just the map, it is also the factions. Let game 2 players access game 2 factions on mortal empires. Then, bring the possibility of cross game DLC that people who buy it can actually use. It's unethical to sell content that may not even be usable, which is obviously why they have not done it.

    Clearly comprehension is missing within this community.
    They didn't sell unusable content. The ME map is free and the map itself, the elven, Skaven, LM cities, models are paid for via game 2. The entitlement on this thread is painful to watch. If you buy game 1 you can fight but not play the DLC units because they are tied to game 1. The same with game 2, you can fight their DLC units, but, if you didn't pay for a particular games commodities then why do you think CA are obliged to hand them over?

    At no point did I ever expect CA to give the full map for only partial owners.

    Clearly the entitlement is in abundance on this thread.
    By unusable content I'm referring to potential cross-game DLC that people are suggesting. The only thing that's painful to watch is your inability to comprehend.

    There's no entitlement on this thread as I own both games and all DLC (except vampire coast, which was a terrible addition to the game).
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Posts: 3,128Registered Users

    Doesn't really matter if they said it. I don't see how it is ethical to sell DLC that requires another game to be usable, and neither will the casual players.

    This issue will be even worse in game 3 as new players will realize they need to buy two more games to get the combined map. This makes the combined map accessible to a possibly small number of people, which isn't good for long term support either.

    I think the best way to handle it is to make the combined map accessible to all players, and then let them use the DLC and lords they own on it. That means if there's a high elf vs orc cross-game pack, the two lords you get will be usable on the campaign map. But if you want the other orc lords you will need to own game 1.

    This is one point I've never understood. Why do you think a player who pays for one game should get a map that encompasses 2 or 3? If I paid for the Paradox DLC (£7.99!) that allows you to carry on a game between games I wouldn't expect to get a £34.99 game after paying £7.99, so I certainly wouldn't expect 1 or 2 AAA titles for free.

    The ME campaign is what people wanted, I hated the fact that new DLC didn't always add to the original title, it's now sorted.
    I never said you get the second or first title for free. I said the map should be accessible to all players. The cost of game 1 is not just the map, it is also the factions. Let game 2 players access game 2 factions on mortal empires. Then, bring the possibility of cross game DLC that people who buy it can actually use. It's unethical to sell content that may not even be usable, which is obviously why they have not done it.

    Clearly comprehension is missing within this community.
    They didn't sell unusable content. The ME map is free and the map itself, the elven, Skaven, LM cities, models are paid for via game 2. The entitlement on this thread is painful to watch. If you buy game 1 you can fight but not play the DLC units because they are tied to game 1. The same with game 2, you can fight their DLC units, but, if you didn't pay for a particular games commodities then why do you think CA are obliged to hand them over?

    At no point did I ever expect CA to give the full map for only partial owners.

    Clearly the entitlement is in abundance on this thread.
    By unusable content I'm referring to potential cross-game DLC that people are suggesting. The only thing that's painful to watch is your inability to comprehend.

    There's no entitlement on this thread as I own both games and all DLC (except vampire coast, which was a terrible addition to the game).
    Oh of course not.. there's no way they're going to release a cross-pack for the millions of customers who own both games.. Ok I admit, I got it wrong how you're wrong; but as it turns out - you're wrong. Despite there being a huge market for people who already own both games you don't think CA would release DLC that entices someone to buy game 1 or 2? Especially while the older one is on offer? You do realise that in the past CA advertised R2 with videos of paid DLC that wasn't included in the game, right? With this in mind do you really think selling a cross game DLC is below them? Naïve.

    A terrible addition that you've never played? Well, may be you could write to see and demand a bespoke version with everything in that you specifically want.
  • ConstantineZAynConstantineZAyn Posts: 63Registered Users

    Doesn't really matter if they said it. I don't see how it is ethical to sell DLC that requires another game to be usable, and neither will the casual players.

    This issue will be even worse in game 3 as new players will realize they need to buy two more games to get the combined map. This makes the combined map accessible to a possibly small number of people, which isn't good for long term support either.

    I think the best way to handle it is to make the combined map accessible to all players, and then let them use the DLC and lords they own on it. That means if there's a high elf vs orc cross-game pack, the two lords you get will be usable on the campaign map. But if you want the other orc lords you will need to own game 1.

    This is one point I've never understood. Why do you think a player who pays for one game should get a map that encompasses 2 or 3? If I paid for the Paradox DLC (£7.99!) that allows you to carry on a game between games I wouldn't expect to get a £34.99 game after paying £7.99, so I certainly wouldn't expect 1 or 2 AAA titles for free.

    The ME campaign is what people wanted, I hated the fact that new DLC didn't always add to the original title, it's now sorted.
    I never said you get the second or first title for free. I said the map should be accessible to all players. The cost of game 1 is not just the map, it is also the factions. Let game 2 players access game 2 factions on mortal empires. Then, bring the possibility of cross game DLC that people who buy it can actually use. It's unethical to sell content that may not even be usable, which is obviously why they have not done it.

    Clearly comprehension is missing within this community.
    They didn't sell unusable content. The ME map is free and the map itself, the elven, Skaven, LM cities, models are paid for via game 2. The entitlement on this thread is painful to watch. If you buy game 1 you can fight but not play the DLC units because they are tied to game 1. The same with game 2, you can fight their DLC units, but, if you didn't pay for a particular games commodities then why do you think CA are obliged to hand them over?

    At no point did I ever expect CA to give the full map for only partial owners.

    Clearly the entitlement is in abundance on this thread.
    By unusable content I'm referring to potential cross-game DLC that people are suggesting. The only thing that's painful to watch is your inability to comprehend.

    There's no entitlement on this thread as I own both games and all DLC (except vampire coast, which was a terrible addition to the game).
    Oh of course not.. there's no way they're going to release a cross-pack for the millions of customers who own both games.. Ok I admit, I got it wrong how you're wrong; but as it turns out - you're wrong. Despite there being a huge market for people who already own both games you don't think CA would release DLC that entices someone to buy game 1 or 2? Especially while the older one is on offer? You do realise that in the past CA advertised R2 with videos of paid DLC that wasn't included in the game, right? With this in mind do you really think selling a cross game DLC is below them? Naïve.

    A terrible addition that you've never played? Well, may be you could write to see and demand a bespoke version with everything in that you specifically want.
    Where did you get the statistic that millions of people own TWW2 and TWW1?

    That bespoke version being a modified game with vampire coast nuked and adjusted into nothing more than a minor nuisance - as it should be.
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Posts: 3,128Registered Users

    Doesn't really matter if they said it. I don't see how it is ethical to sell DLC that requires another game to be usable, and neither will the casual players.

    This issue will be even worse in game 3 as new players will realize they need to buy two more games to get the combined map. This makes the combined map accessible to a possibly small number of people, which isn't good for long term support either.

    I think the best way to handle it is to make the combined map accessible to all players, and then let them use the DLC and lords they own on it. That means if there's a high elf vs orc cross-game pack, the two lords you get will be usable on the campaign map. But if you want the other orc lords you will need to own game 1.

    This is one point I've never understood. Why do you think a player who pays for one game should get a map that encompasses 2 or 3? If I paid for the Paradox DLC (£7.99!) that allows you to carry on a game between games I wouldn't expect to get a £34.99 game after paying £7.99, so I certainly wouldn't expect 1 or 2 AAA titles for free.

    The ME campaign is what people wanted, I hated the fact that new DLC didn't always add to the original title, it's now sorted.
    I never said you get the second or first title for free. I said the map should be accessible to all players. The cost of game 1 is not just the map, it is also the factions. Let game 2 players access game 2 factions on mortal empires. Then, bring the possibility of cross game DLC that people who buy it can actually use. It's unethical to sell content that may not even be usable, which is obviously why they have not done it.

    Clearly comprehension is missing within this community.
    They didn't sell unusable content. The ME map is free and the map itself, the elven, Skaven, LM cities, models are paid for via game 2. The entitlement on this thread is painful to watch. If you buy game 1 you can fight but not play the DLC units because they are tied to game 1. The same with game 2, you can fight their DLC units, but, if you didn't pay for a particular games commodities then why do you think CA are obliged to hand them over?

    At no point did I ever expect CA to give the full map for only partial owners.

    Clearly the entitlement is in abundance on this thread.
    By unusable content I'm referring to potential cross-game DLC that people are suggesting. The only thing that's painful to watch is your inability to comprehend.

    There's no entitlement on this thread as I own both games and all DLC (except vampire coast, which was a terrible addition to the game).
    Oh of course not.. there's no way they're going to release a cross-pack for the millions of customers who own both games.. Ok I admit, I got it wrong how you're wrong; but as it turns out - you're wrong. Despite there being a huge market for people who already own both games you don't think CA would release DLC that entices someone to buy game 1 or 2? Especially while the older one is on offer? You do realise that in the past CA advertised R2 with videos of paid DLC that wasn't included in the game, right? With this in mind do you really think selling a cross game DLC is below them? Naïve.

    A terrible addition that you've never played? Well, may be you could write to see and demand a bespoke version with everything in that you specifically want.
    Where did you get the statistic that millions of people own TWW2 and TWW1?

    That bespoke version being a modified game with vampire coast nuked and adjusted into nothing more than a minor nuisance - as it should be.
    About 1 and a half years ago the sales of Warhammer 1 were 1.77 million. Warhammer 2s sales weren't as good but according the Steam spy they are over 1 million a year after release. That's not including the cut price sales since, so yes, both Warhammer games are in the millions.

    Great.
  • NyxilisNyxilis Posts: 2,709Registered Users

    Doesn't really matter if they said it. I don't see how it is ethical to sell DLC that requires another game to be usable, and neither will the casual players.

    This issue will be even worse in game 3 as new players will realize they need to buy two more games to get the combined map. This makes the combined map accessible to a possibly small number of people, which isn't good for long term support either.

    I think the best way to handle it is to make the combined map accessible to all players, and then let them use the DLC and lords they own on it. That means if there's a high elf vs orc cross-game pack, the two lords you get will be usable on the campaign map. But if you want the other orc lords you will need to own game 1.

    This is one point I've never understood. Why do you think a player who pays for one game should get a map that encompasses 2 or 3? If I paid for the Paradox DLC (£7.99!) that allows you to carry on a game between games I wouldn't expect to get a £34.99 game after paying £7.99, so I certainly wouldn't expect 1 or 2 AAA titles for free.

    The ME campaign is what people wanted, I hated the fact that new DLC didn't always add to the original title, it's now sorted.
    I never said you get the second or first title for free. I said the map should be accessible to all players. The cost of game 1 is not just the map, it is also the factions. Let game 2 players access game 2 factions on mortal empires. Then, bring the possibility of cross game DLC that people who buy it can actually use. It's unethical to sell content that may not even be usable, which is obviously why they have not done it.

    Clearly comprehension is missing within this community.
    They didn't sell unusable content. The ME map is free and the map itself, the elven, Skaven, LM cities, models are paid for via game 2. The entitlement on this thread is painful to watch. If you buy game 1 you can fight but not play the DLC units because they are tied to game 1. The same with game 2, you can fight their DLC units, but, if you didn't pay for a particular games commodities then why do you think CA are obliged to hand them over?

    At no point did I ever expect CA to give the full map for only partial owners.

    Clearly the entitlement is in abundance on this thread.
    By unusable content I'm referring to potential cross-game DLC that people are suggesting. The only thing that's painful to watch is your inability to comprehend.

    There's no entitlement on this thread as I own both games and all DLC (except vampire coast, which was a terrible addition to the game).
    Oh of course not.. there's no way they're going to release a cross-pack for the millions of customers who own both games.. Ok I admit, I got it wrong how you're wrong; but as it turns out - you're wrong. Despite there being a huge market for people who already own both games you don't think CA would release DLC that entices someone to buy game 1 or 2? Especially while the older one is on offer? You do realise that in the past CA advertised R2 with videos of paid DLC that wasn't included in the game, right? With this in mind do you really think selling a cross game DLC is below them? Naïve.

    A terrible addition that you've never played? Well, may be you could write to see and demand a bespoke version with everything in that you specifically want.
    Where did you get the statistic that millions of people own TWW2 and TWW1?

    That bespoke version being a modified game with vampire coast nuked and adjusted into nothing more than a minor nuisance - as it should be.
    Sales for both games are in the millions. Are you seriously going to try and convince us that a whole nothing million or even half million of players ignored game one and then got into two alone? That's nonsense.

    I'd argue that the overwhelming majority of players that bought game two day one already owned game one. Because they were already fans of the series.

    Then I'd argue that slim minority who only owned game 2 has narrowed considerably now that we've had multiple sales with game 1 being $15 bucks.
  • AlchimistAlchimist Posts: 157Registered Users

    Nyxilis said:

    But if they gave Ogres an entirely different mechanic in place of rites I wouldn't cry at all.

    Ogres need a full on cooking minigame.
    And the Nurgle faction of Daemons of Chaos needs a Plague crafting mini-game, a sort of mini Plague Inc.

    You select attributes (duration, effects, spreading ...), each attribute cost ressources and once you're satisfied you click on craft, you can name your plague, and then you can buy a unique hero bearing the plague of your choosing, the price of the hero would depend on the number of attribute selected before, could be fun as hell.
  • ConstantineZAynConstantineZAyn Posts: 63Registered Users
    edited April 14
    The peak player-base for TWW2 was 70,000 players. That is only 7% of a million. The population floats at around 25,000 players. 2.5% of a million. With such a small population, the statement of "millions of customers" is certainly bold and exaggerated, when most of them are just fans who bought game 1 and game 2. Great.

    Of course, this is completely irrelevant to the post or the things I was talking about earlier. It is certainly entertaining how they will nitpick my arguments to whatever suits them, ignoring the rest. It becomes clear why CA is more active on Reddit than their own forums.
    Nyxilis said:

    Doesn't really matter if they said it. I don't see how it is ethical to sell DLC that requires another game to be usable, and neither will the casual players.

    This issue will be even worse in game 3 as new players will realize they need to buy two more games to get the combined map. This makes the combined map accessible to a possibly small number of people, which isn't good for long term support either.

    I think the best way to handle it is to make the combined map accessible to all players, and then let them use the DLC and lords they own on it. That means if there's a high elf vs orc cross-game pack, the two lords you get will be usable on the campaign map. But if you want the other orc lords you will need to own game 1.

    This is one point I've never understood. Why do you think a player who pays for one game should get a map that encompasses 2 or 3? If I paid for the Paradox DLC (£7.99!) that allows you to carry on a game between games I wouldn't expect to get a £34.99 game after paying £7.99, so I certainly wouldn't expect 1 or 2 AAA titles for free.

    The ME campaign is what people wanted, I hated the fact that new DLC didn't always add to the original title, it's now sorted.
    I never said you get the second or first title for free. I said the map should be accessible to all players. The cost of game 1 is not just the map, it is also the factions. Let game 2 players access game 2 factions on mortal empires. Then, bring the possibility of cross game DLC that people who buy it can actually use. It's unethical to sell content that may not even be usable, which is obviously why they have not done it.

    Clearly comprehension is missing within this community.
    They didn't sell unusable content. The ME map is free and the map itself, the elven, Skaven, LM cities, models are paid for via game 2. The entitlement on this thread is painful to watch. If you buy game 1 you can fight but not play the DLC units because they are tied to game 1. The same with game 2, you can fight their DLC units, but, if you didn't pay for a particular games commodities then why do you think CA are obliged to hand them over?

    At no point did I ever expect CA to give the full map for only partial owners.

    Clearly the entitlement is in abundance on this thread.
    By unusable content I'm referring to potential cross-game DLC that people are suggesting. The only thing that's painful to watch is your inability to comprehend.

    There's no entitlement on this thread as I own both games and all DLC (except vampire coast, which was a terrible addition to the game).
    Oh of course not.. there's no way they're going to release a cross-pack for the millions of customers who own both games.. Ok I admit, I got it wrong how you're wrong; but as it turns out - you're wrong. Despite there being a huge market for people who already own both games you don't think CA would release DLC that entices someone to buy game 1 or 2? Especially while the older one is on offer? You do realise that in the past CA advertised R2 with videos of paid DLC that wasn't included in the game, right? With this in mind do you really think selling a cross game DLC is below them? Naïve.

    A terrible addition that you've never played? Well, may be you could write to see and demand a bespoke version with everything in that you specifically want.
    Where did you get the statistic that millions of people own TWW2 and TWW1?

    That bespoke version being a modified game with vampire coast nuked and adjusted into nothing more than a minor nuisance - as it should be.
    Sales for both games are in the millions. Are you seriously going to try and convince us that a whole nothing million or even half million of players ignored game one and then got into two alone? That's nonsense.

    I'd argue that the overwhelming majority of players that bought game two day one already owned game one. Because they were already fans of the series.

    Then I'd argue that slim minority who only owned game 2 has narrowed considerably now that we've had multiple sales with game 1 being $15 bucks.
    I don't need to convince you of anything, because I don't throw around estimates, fake statistics, and arguments of "overwhelming majority" when we really don't know anything concrete. If TWW2 sold a million copies, and, say, 5% of its playerbase don't own game 1, that means there are potentially 50,000 people that can be ripped off wih a DLC they can't use. CA knows this which is why there is no cross game DLC.

    Nothing is going to change the fact that it is an unethical practice to sell DLC in a game that requires another game to be usable. The end.
  • NyxilisNyxilis Posts: 2,709Registered Users

    The peak player-base for TWW2 was 70,000 players. That is only 7% of a million. The population floats at around 25,000 players. 2.5% of a million. With such a small population, the statement of "millions of customers" is certainly bold and exaggerated, when most of them are just fans who bought game 1 and game 2. Great.

    Of course, this is completely irrelevant to the post or the things I was talking about earlier. It is certainly entertaining how they will nitpick my arguments to whatever suits them, ignoring the rest. It becomes clear why CA is more active on Reddit than their own forums.


    Nyxilis said:

    Doesn't really matter if they said it. I don't see how it is ethical to sell DLC that requires another game to be usable, and neither will the casual players.

    This issue will be even worse in game 3 as new players will realize they need to buy two more games to get the combined map. This makes the combined map accessible to a possibly small number of people, which isn't good for long term support either.

    I think the best way to handle it is to make the combined map accessible to all players, and then let them use the DLC and lords they own on it. That means if there's a high elf vs orc cross-game pack, the two lords you get will be usable on the campaign map. But if you want the other orc lords you will need to own game 1.

    This is one point I've never understood. Why do you think a player who pays for one game should get a map that encompasses 2 or 3? If I paid for the Paradox DLC (£7.99!) that allows you to carry on a game between games I wouldn't expect to get a £34.99 game after paying £7.99, so I certainly wouldn't expect 1 or 2 AAA titles for free.

    The ME campaign is what people wanted, I hated the fact that new DLC didn't always add to the original title, it's now sorted.
    I never said you get the second or first title for free. I said the map should be accessible to all players. The cost of game 1 is not just the map, it is also the factions. Let game 2 players access game 2 factions on mortal empires. Then, bring the possibility of cross game DLC that people who buy it can actually use. It's unethical to sell content that may not even be usable, which is obviously why they have not done it.

    Clearly comprehension is missing within this community.
    They didn't sell unusable content. The ME map is free and the map itself, the elven, Skaven, LM cities, models are paid for via game 2. The entitlement on this thread is painful to watch. If you buy game 1 you can fight but not play the DLC units because they are tied to game 1. The same with game 2, you can fight their DLC units, but, if you didn't pay for a particular games commodities then why do you think CA are obliged to hand them over?

    At no point did I ever expect CA to give the full map for only partial owners.

    Clearly the entitlement is in abundance on this thread.
    By unusable content I'm referring to potential cross-game DLC that people are suggesting. The only thing that's painful to watch is your inability to comprehend.

    There's no entitlement on this thread as I own both games and all DLC (except vampire coast, which was a terrible addition to the game).
    Oh of course not.. there's no way they're going to release a cross-pack for the millions of customers who own both games.. Ok I admit, I got it wrong how you're wrong; but as it turns out - you're wrong. Despite there being a huge market for people who already own both games you don't think CA would release DLC that entices someone to buy game 1 or 2? Especially while the older one is on offer? You do realise that in the past CA advertised R2 with videos of paid DLC that wasn't included in the game, right? With this in mind do you really think selling a cross game DLC is below them? Naïve.

    A terrible addition that you've never played? Well, may be you could write to see and demand a bespoke version with everything in that you specifically want.
    Where did you get the statistic that millions of people own TWW2 and TWW1?

    That bespoke version being a modified game with vampire coast nuked and adjusted into nothing more than a minor nuisance - as it should be.
    Sales for both games are in the millions. Are you seriously going to try and convince us that a whole nothing million or even half million of players ignored game one and then got into two alone? That's nonsense.

    I'd argue that the overwhelming majority of players that bought game two day one already owned game one. Because they were already fans of the series.

    Then I'd argue that slim minority who only owned game 2 has narrowed considerably now that we've had multiple sales with game 1 being $15 bucks.
    I don't need to convince you of anything, because I don't throw around estimates, fake statistics, and arguments of "overwhelming majority" when we really don't know anything concrete. If TWW2 sold a million copies, and, say, 5% of its playerbase don't own game 1, that means there are potentially 50,000 people that can be ripped off wih a DLC they can't use. CA knows this which is why there is no cross game DLC.

    Nothing is going to change the fact that it is an unethical practice to sell DLC in a game that requires another game to be usable. The end.
    There are no fake estimates. The game sold millions of copies. And you're claiming they should make DLC around 5% who can't be asked to spend fifteen bucks.

    Nothing fake about it, it's just terrible to hold yourself to.
  • Xenos7Xenos7 Posts: 4,489Registered Users

    How would they do DLC for game 1 races in game 2 when owners of game 2 might not even own game 1? Some people might buy the DLC and literally get nothing since they can't play mortal empires. There's already enough negative rage reviews about how they need to buy game 1 to get the 'full experience'.

    The same problem exists for the idea of cross-game DLC which is frequently being suggested. How do people not get this? TWW2 is a seperate game and mortal empires is treated as a little ''bonus'' for game 1 owners. Which is nonsense because the combined map is the point of the trilogy.

    By including the basic roster into the DLC. Only way to go, really.
  • ConstantineZAynConstantineZAyn Posts: 63Registered Users
    Nyxilis said:

    The peak player-base for TWW2 was 70,000 players. That is only 7% of a million. The population floats at around 25,000 players. 2.5% of a million. With such a small population, the statement of "millions of customers" is certainly bold and exaggerated, when most of them are just fans who bought game 1 and game 2. Great.

    Of course, this is completely irrelevant to the post or the things I was talking about earlier. It is certainly entertaining how they will nitpick my arguments to whatever suits them, ignoring the rest. It becomes clear why CA is more active on Reddit than their own forums.


    Nyxilis said:

    Doesn't really matter if they said it. I don't see how it is ethical to sell DLC that requires another game to be usable, and neither will the casual players.

    This issue will be even worse in game 3 as new players will realize they need to buy two more games to get the combined map. This makes the combined map accessible to a possibly small number of people, which isn't good for long term support either.

    I think the best way to handle it is to make the combined map accessible to all players, and then let them use the DLC and lords they own on it. That means if there's a high elf vs orc cross-game pack, the two lords you get will be usable on the campaign map. But if you want the other orc lords you will need to own game 1.

    This is one point I've never understood. Why do you think a player who pays for one game should get a map that encompasses 2 or 3? If I paid for the Paradox DLC (£7.99!) that allows you to carry on a game between games I wouldn't expect to get a £34.99 game after paying £7.99, so I certainly wouldn't expect 1 or 2 AAA titles for free.

    The ME campaign is what people wanted, I hated the fact that new DLC didn't always add to the original title, it's now sorted.
    I never said you get the second or first title for free. I said the map should be accessible to all players. The cost of game 1 is not just the map, it is also the factions. Let game 2 players access game 2 factions on mortal empires. Then, bring the possibility of cross game DLC that people who buy it can actually use. It's unethical to sell content that may not even be usable, which is obviously why they have not done it.

    Clearly comprehension is missing within this community.
    They didn't sell unusable content. The ME map is free and the map itself, the elven, Skaven, LM cities, models are paid for via game 2. The entitlement on this thread is painful to watch. If you buy game 1 you can fight but not play the DLC units because they are tied to game 1. The same with game 2, you can fight their DLC units, but, if you didn't pay for a particular games commodities then why do you think CA are obliged to hand them over?

    At no point did I ever expect CA to give the full map for only partial owners.

    Clearly the entitlement is in abundance on this thread.
    By unusable content I'm referring to potential cross-game DLC that people are suggesting. The only thing that's painful to watch is your inability to comprehend.

    There's no entitlement on this thread as I own both games and all DLC (except vampire coast, which was a terrible addition to the game).
    Oh of course not.. there's no way they're going to release a cross-pack for the millions of customers who own both games.. Ok I admit, I got it wrong how you're wrong; but as it turns out - you're wrong. Despite there being a huge market for people who already own both games you don't think CA would release DLC that entices someone to buy game 1 or 2? Especially while the older one is on offer? You do realise that in the past CA advertised R2 with videos of paid DLC that wasn't included in the game, right? With this in mind do you really think selling a cross game DLC is below them? Naïve.

    A terrible addition that you've never played? Well, may be you could write to see and demand a bespoke version with everything in that you specifically want.
    Where did you get the statistic that millions of people own TWW2 and TWW1?

    That bespoke version being a modified game with vampire coast nuked and adjusted into nothing more than a minor nuisance - as it should be.
    Sales for both games are in the millions. Are you seriously going to try and convince us that a whole nothing million or even half million of players ignored game one and then got into two alone? That's nonsense.

    I'd argue that the overwhelming majority of players that bought game two day one already owned game one. Because they were already fans of the series.

    Then I'd argue that slim minority who only owned game 2 has narrowed considerably now that we've had multiple sales with game 1 being $15 bucks.
    I don't need to convince you of anything, because I don't throw around estimates, fake statistics, and arguments of "overwhelming majority" when we really don't know anything concrete. If TWW2 sold a million copies, and, say, 5% of its playerbase don't own game 1, that means there are potentially 50,000 people that can be ripped off wih a DLC they can't use. CA knows this which is why there is no cross game DLC.

    Nothing is going to change the fact that it is an unethical practice to sell DLC in a game that requires another game to be usable. The end.
    There are no fake estimates. The game sold millions of copies. And you're claiming they should make DLC around 5% who can't be asked to spend fifteen bucks.

    Nothing fake about it, it's just terrible to hold yourself to.
    Considering that game 2's population floats at around 25000 players that means only 0.5-2.5% of the owners still play it regardless of how many millions bought the game, and we have no numbers on how many people own all the content or own both games. We don't have these statistics, so all of your arguments are baseless.

    Game 1 doesn't cost 15 bucks. It is priced as a full game. I've already said this before but I'm going in circles. I'm sure communication with a brick wall would go better.

    It is unethical to sell DLC that requires another game to be usable. Exit the echo-chamber, go for a walk, then come back when you figure that out.
Sign In or Register to comment.