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

WoC future (Sigvald)

2»

Comments

  • ForumaccountkroqgarForumaccountkroqgar Registered Users Posts: 869

    They aren't going to move him. People have paid for content including him. There is a whole bunch of legal mumbo jumbo which would complicate the matter.

    Not true. There's nothing legal about this, people have paid for WH1 DLC and gotten a DLC for the game WH1. What they were sold is never going to change.

    If they wanted they could make Sigvald a skaven lord in WH3 without any kind of legal trouble. Coinsumer outrage is another matter, but those consumers have nothing to stand on.

    It's the same as if in WH3 they decide to move Markus to some Khuresh island in Mortal Empires and quickly replace his lizardmen enemies with cathay AI. People would have a right to be angry, but not a leg to stand from a consumers rights PoV.
    We actually don't know what the legality or not of it is, because the games industry as a whole pushes its luck every single year and normalises a new way of being abusive. The ethics we can definitely talk about though.

    It's arguable that the success of the Warhammer trilogy so far has leant heavily on one leg: that it is a trilogy and CA revealed this to be the case long before the first game released, an that all three games would combined together.

    Almost immediately there is a fudge which requires a leap-of-faith from players, which is trust that CA are in a position to abuse and have a moral obligation not to. I did not buy WH1 because I wanted WH1, even though legally and in custom, I bought WH1. I bought the first part of a trilogy, with future expectations that were deliberately set by CA.

    Hell, I've bought DLC I'm not really that bothered about, because I want the complete WH trilogy, not each specific DLC by itself. There is value in continuity, coherence and completeness: it's the whole reason the MCU is the most successful entertainment franchise of all-time, despite not yet producing any single film that will be remembered in 30 years time. The whole of the thing will though.
    We absolutely know. Your contract with steam doesn't specify anything about future deliveries. If WH2 had flopped, there's nothing there to force CA to make WH3 just because you have expectatives. They could have moved on to medieval 3 or Tasmania one without any legal trouble.

    The MCU is another good example. Your "contract" isn't with marvel, it's with the movie theaters, for watching one movie at a time. If at any point marvel thinks one character doesn't hit with their target demographics, they can absolutely ignore their comics and go any other way with their next movie.
    Justice for the scalies!

    Basic fixes for blessed spawnings and geomantic web:
    https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/293369/lizardmen-rework-suggestions/p1?new=1
  • ArecBalrin#2350ArecBalrin#2350 Registered Users Posts: 2,935

    1. It's unlikely CA will want to remove content from an already established paid DLC
    2. Champions of certain gods joining up with the undivided is well established lore and there's no particular need to remove him
    3. It's highly optimistic that WoC will get 3 new lords. That's a lot of content added for a released race and one extra lord per god is unlikely to happen.
    4. Given the high number of base races means monogods likely won't get as much attention as previous base races and have less to start. They likely will not exceed 3-4 LLs and as such there isn't a dire need for god aligned characters to fill out the monogods.
    5. As per point 4, this leaves a chance that some "god aligned" characters can still be used to pad out the undivided races, such as sayl for WoC or one of the Daemons for DoC.

    I think the way CA(which I now regard as standing for 'Creative Accounting') gets around changing/removing content from already established products that they paid for, is to retro-actively re-categorise what we paid for.

    We didn't buy Warriors of Chaos.

    We bought Archeon, Kholek and Sigvald, who have access to the WoC race roster in WH1. Also in Mortal Empires, but CA does not regard the combined campaign as many players do; as the whole point of the WH trilogy, but as something 'extra' which CA graciously include.

    So no matter what they do with WoC in WH3; we still own the same 3 characters with nothing changed in WH1. In WH3, we still own the characters; our prior expectation of a cohesive combined trilogy and that we bought Warriors of Chaos as part of that, counts for nothing.

    Creative Accounting.
  • CaesarSahlertzCaesarSahlertz Registered Users Posts: 7,073

    They aren't going to move him. People have paid for content including him. There is a whole bunch of legal mumbo jumbo which would complicate the matter.

    Not true. There's nothing legal about this, people have paid for WH1 DLC and gotten a DLC for the game WH1. What they were sold is never going to change.

    If they wanted they could make Sigvald a skaven lord in WH3 without any kind of legal trouble. Coinsumer outrage is another matter, but those consumers have nothing to stand on.

    It's the same as if in WH3 they decide to move Markus to some Khuresh island in Mortal Empires and quickly replace his lizardmen enemies with cathay AI. People would have a right to be angry, but not a leg to stand from a consumers rights PoV.
    We actually don't know what the legality or not of it is, because the games industry as a whole pushes its luck every single year and normalises a new way of being abusive. The ethics we can definitely talk about though.

    It's arguable that the success of the Warhammer trilogy so far has leant heavily on one leg: that it is a trilogy and CA revealed this to be the case long before the first game released, an that all three games would combined together.

    Almost immediately there is a fudge which requires a leap-of-faith from players, which is trust that CA are in a position to abuse and have a moral obligation not to. I did not buy WH1 because I wanted WH1, even though legally and in custom, I bought WH1. I bought the first part of a trilogy, with future expectations that were deliberately set by CA.

    Hell, I've bought DLC I'm not really that bothered about, because I want the complete WH trilogy, not each specific DLC by itself. There is value in continuity, coherence and completeness: it's the whole reason the MCU is the most successful entertainment franchise of all-time, despite not yet producing any single film that will be remembered in 30 years time. The whole of the thing will though.
    We absolutely know. Your contract with steam doesn't specify anything about future deliveries. If WH2 had flopped, there's nothing there to force CA to make WH3 just because you have expectatives. They could have moved on to medieval 3 or Tasmania one without any legal trouble.

    The MCU is another good example. Your "contract" isn't with marvel, it's with the movie theaters, for watching one movie at a time. If at any point marvel thinks one character doesn't hit with their target demographics, they can absolutely ignore their comics and go any other way with their next movie.
    No, but IF they make WH3 then CA is VERY MUCH obligated to include the 2 previous games' content, since that is LITERALLY in the contract....
  • ForumaccountkroqgarForumaccountkroqgar Registered Users Posts: 869
    edited May 2021

    They aren't going to move him. People have paid for content including him. There is a whole bunch of legal mumbo jumbo which would complicate the matter.

    Not true. There's nothing legal about this, people have paid for WH1 DLC and gotten a DLC for the game WH1. What they were sold is never going to change.

    If they wanted they could make Sigvald a skaven lord in WH3 without any kind of legal trouble. Coinsumer outrage is another matter, but those consumers have nothing to stand on.

    It's the same as if in WH3 they decide to move Markus to some Khuresh island in Mortal Empires and quickly replace his lizardmen enemies with cathay AI. People would have a right to be angry, but not a leg to stand from a consumers rights PoV.
    We actually don't know what the legality or not of it is, because the games industry as a whole pushes its luck every single year and normalises a new way of being abusive. The ethics we can definitely talk about though.

    It's arguable that the success of the Warhammer trilogy so far has leant heavily on one leg: that it is a trilogy and CA revealed this to be the case long before the first game released, an that all three games would combined together.

    Almost immediately there is a fudge which requires a leap-of-faith from players, which is trust that CA are in a position to abuse and have a moral obligation not to. I did not buy WH1 because I wanted WH1, even though legally and in custom, I bought WH1. I bought the first part of a trilogy, with future expectations that were deliberately set by CA.

    Hell, I've bought DLC I'm not really that bothered about, because I want the complete WH trilogy, not each specific DLC by itself. There is value in continuity, coherence and completeness: it's the whole reason the MCU is the most successful entertainment franchise of all-time, despite not yet producing any single film that will be remembered in 30 years time. The whole of the thing will though.
    We absolutely know. Your contract with steam doesn't specify anything about future deliveries. If WH2 had flopped, there's nothing there to force CA to make WH3 just because you have expectatives. They could have moved on to medieval 3 or Tasmania one without any legal trouble.

    The MCU is another good example. Your "contract" isn't with marvel, it's with the movie theaters, for watching one movie at a time. If at any point marvel thinks one character doesn't hit with their target demographics, they can absolutely ignore their comics and go any other way with their next movie.
    No, but IF they make WH3 then CA is VERY MUCH obligated to include the 2 previous games' content, since that is LITERALLY in the contract....
    Listen, you're wrong and that's it. Show me where does it say that in your contract with steam and I'll concede.

    I'm not talking about your feelings as a consumer, you have a right to hate CA or feel outraged or whatever you want. You have no legal right.


    Justice for the scalies!

    Basic fixes for blessed spawnings and geomantic web:
    https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/293369/lizardmen-rework-suggestions/p1?new=1
  • ArecBalrin#2350ArecBalrin#2350 Registered Users Posts: 2,935

    They aren't going to move him. People have paid for content including him. There is a whole bunch of legal mumbo jumbo which would complicate the matter.

    Not true. There's nothing legal about this, people have paid for WH1 DLC and gotten a DLC for the game WH1. What they were sold is never going to change.

    If they wanted they could make Sigvald a skaven lord in WH3 without any kind of legal trouble. Coinsumer outrage is another matter, but those consumers have nothing to stand on.

    It's the same as if in WH3 they decide to move Markus to some Khuresh island in Mortal Empires and quickly replace his lizardmen enemies with cathay AI. People would have a right to be angry, but not a leg to stand from a consumers rights PoV.
    We actually don't know what the legality or not of it is, because the games industry as a whole pushes its luck every single year and normalises a new way of being abusive. The ethics we can definitely talk about though.

    It's arguable that the success of the Warhammer trilogy so far has leant heavily on one leg: that it is a trilogy and CA revealed this to be the case long before the first game released, an that all three games would combined together.

    Almost immediately there is a fudge which requires a leap-of-faith from players, which is trust that CA are in a position to abuse and have a moral obligation not to. I did not buy WH1 because I wanted WH1, even though legally and in custom, I bought WH1. I bought the first part of a trilogy, with future expectations that were deliberately set by CA.

    Hell, I've bought DLC I'm not really that bothered about, because I want the complete WH trilogy, not each specific DLC by itself. There is value in continuity, coherence and completeness: it's the whole reason the MCU is the most successful entertainment franchise of all-time, despite not yet producing any single film that will be remembered in 30 years time. The whole of the thing will though.
    We absolutely know. Your contract with steam doesn't specify anything about future deliveries. If WH2 had flopped, there's nothing there to force CA to make WH3 just because you have expectatives. They could have moved on to medieval 3 or Tasmania one without any legal trouble.

    The MCU is another good example. Your "contract" isn't with marvel, it's with the movie theaters, for watching one movie at a time. If at any point marvel thinks one character doesn't hit with their target demographics, they can absolutely ignore their comics and go any other way with their next movie.
    I prefer to talk about the ethics rather than legality, because I am close to 100% sure none of us have the IRL background necessary; we're not lawyers. It was tedious enough that each time Rockstar removed a huge number of songs from the GTA games as the limited licenses they had purchased expired(these licenses were designed to cover Rockstar for printing GTA game discs which contained the songs), very non-informative arguments exploded between people who admitted they were not lawyers but definitely knew enough to make definitive statements about legality.

    In any case: what Rockstar did was perfectly legal, in the US where many companies issuing software licenses are incorporated within states with favourable legal environments.

    In the EU, digital goods are regarded as being the same as physical goods when purchased within the EU. Rockstar deleting songs from a game after someone bought it is arguably equivalent within the EU as Rockstar physically removing discs from a person's collection or remotely rendering someone else's property unuseable. This is still a grey area and it does not matter what a contract says: no contract can infringe upon statutory rights and every consumer agreement must include this specific language "this does not infringe your statutory rights", even if the said document obviously does infringe on statutory rights. What matters is what a court decides and no court within the EU has ruled on this because it's the stuff of class-action lawsuits, which the EU doesn't have. Neither does the UK; which has group-litigation that is more restrictive.

    These areas remain grey because there are not enough people motivated by the principle alone, and they certainly wouldn't gain much if they won. Most people affected would have bought said games in a Steam sale very cheaply.
  • Prince_AlucardPrince_Alucard Registered Users Posts: 579
    The undivided warriors/daemons I could get. Even though IDK if they'd call it an entire race for just Be'lakor, even if he's got access to almost entirely daemons and Archaon entirely warriors. Whatever they call it doesn't matter much though.


    But I definitely shouldn't be anything beyond that. Sigvald should definitely be moved, the only argument I really see against it is "it's already like that so you can't change it!" when they absolutely could and should. Should still need the WoC to play Sigvald in game 3 yes, but I see no reason at all as to why he should not be leading a Slaanesh army rather an undivided one.


    If making their content BETTER is removing content then IDK, guess they shouldn't have moved Gelt or Azhag, that's technically "removing" content right? I find it strange why anyone would shed a tear over Sigvald's position being changed. lol
  • davedave1124#4773davedave1124#4773 Senior Member St Helens UKRegistered Users Posts: 22,051
    I think WoC will stay the same and the narrative will be based around the Daemons and their individual goals. This is based before the End Times so Archeon doesn’t hold the same importance to the narrative.

    The WoC May borrow some units from the monos but I honestly think a 5 year old DLC is the last thing on CA’s mind and rightly so.
  • KirGeo#5270KirGeo#5270 Registered Users Posts: 1,126

    I think WoC will stay the same and the narrative will be based around the Daemons and their individual goals. This is based before the End Times so Archeon doesn’t hold the same importance to the narrative.

    The WoC May borrow some units from the monos but I honestly think a 5 year old DLC is the last thing on CA’s mind and rightly so.

    People talk about BM, WoC and Norsca all the time here and on reddit. So I is somewhere on their mind.

    Think this thread can be closed.
    We want all the factions Dogs of War, Araby, Ind, Kuresh, Nippon, Hobgoblin Khanate. Milk us CA.
  • davedave1124#4773davedave1124#4773 Senior Member St Helens UKRegistered Users Posts: 22,051
    KirGeo said:

    I think WoC will stay the same and the narrative will be based around the Daemons and their individual goals. This is based before the End Times so Archeon doesn’t hold the same importance to the narrative.

    The WoC May borrow some units from the monos but I honestly think a 5 year old DLC is the last thing on CA’s mind and rightly so.

    People talk about BM, WoC and Norsca all the time here and on reddit. So I is somewhere on their mind.

    Think this thread can be closed.
    Not in the context of an initial release for a new game. Apart from the game 2 DLC we will only hear about game 3 and that makes perfect sense. Probably hear more about WoC when the new ME campaign comes on line.
  • dge1dge1 Moderator Arkansas, USARegistered Users, Moderators, Knights Posts: 23,784
    KirGeo said:

    I think WoC will stay the same and the narrative will be based around the Daemons and their individual goals. This is based before the End Times so Archeon doesn’t hold the same importance to the narrative.

    The WoC May borrow some units from the monos but I honestly think a 5 year old DLC is the last thing on CA’s mind and rightly so.

    People talk about BM, WoC and Norsca all the time here and on reddit. So I is somewhere on their mind.

    Think this thread can be closed.
    Closed at OP request.
    "The two most common things in the universe are Hydrogen and Stupidity." - Harlan Ellison
    "The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously." - Hubert H. Humphrey
    "Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin/Mark Twain
    “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”–George Santayana, The Life of Reason, 1905.

This discussion has been closed.