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

Rant about CA's DLC paywall structure in Totalwar Series.

kkwon39kkwon39 Posts: 192Registered Users
Frist of all, let me just say that I love CA and want to thank them for developing total war series (great games after all).

With that said, I do want to say their DLC faction paywall structure is a little unfair from consumer's perspective. Do you guys think its fare to sell each faction for 20$ when you are paying full 72$ for a tripple A title?

I know this is exactly how EA and other big game developer companies make money, through DLC structures and micro transactions, (BLOOD FOR BLOOD GOD ONLY FOR 3 DOLLORS) but what do you think? do you guys think it is totally fare for CA to do this? for maybe do you sense a little greed?

(Not to mention that TOB looks like a reskin of attila engine fully priced at 47$.. this was a bit disappointing too.)


Comments

  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Posts: 3,774Registered Users
    I don't think this is in the correct section at all, and might be against forum rules but if anything post it in general section.
  • kkwon39kkwon39 Posts: 192Registered Users
    edited May 6
    From consumer's perspective, if I am expected to pay 72$ for a fully priced out triple A title, you really should get access to all contents within the game.

    Having factions that you can only play if you pay another 20$ doesn't seem right to me, EA tried to pull off pay to win microtransaction structure in Starwars battlefront 2 and the player base clearly showed them what they will stand for, and what they will not.

    I'm not saying that DLC factions are pay to win after all, (they can all be beaten by vanilla vactions) but I just think it's unfair that a player cannot get access to full contents within the game when he's paying the full price.

    I mean how is everyone ok with having to pay 20$ per faction to get all contents within the game? I can't understand from a fair consumer's point of view when there are games like PUBG and rainbow 6 priced at 15~30 dollors which you canget access to full contents of the game.


  • ElectorOfWurttembergElectorOfWurttemberg Posts: 1,064Registered Users
    edited May 6
    The model is fine for SP where balance is irrelevant... you don't pay to win against the ai, you pay to expand your gameplay options, the issue is with MP.

    Post it in General and all you'll get is screeching over how MP is irrelevant and we should never talk about it.

    Blood for a blood god is just a cosmetic, who cares about it. What about say... WE DLC which a WH2 player has to buy not only it, but WH1 to use, all to play what is a top tier faction in the meta for Wh2 MP. Then they get 4 Wh1 vanilla factions that are incomplete unless they buy Grim and the Grave and King and the Warlord.

    It's a mess.

    What are you, some kind of... FANBOY
  • kkwon39kkwon39 Posts: 192Registered Users

    The model is fine for SP where balance is irrelevant... you don't pay to win against the ai, you pay to expand your gameplay options, the issue is with MP.

    Post it in General and all you'll get is screeching over how MP is irrelevant and we should never talk about it.

    Blood for a blood god is just a cosmetic, who cares about it. What about say... WE DLC which a WH1 player has to buy not only it, but WH1 to use. Then they get 4 Wh1 vanilla factions that are incomplete unless they buy Grim and the Grave and King and the Warlord.

    It's a mess.

    Mind you, WE are a top tier faction atm as well.

    Well I'm not saying that it is pay to win, because all the factions behind paywall are beatable by vanilla factions, but I'm saying that it is simply unfair and greedy model that forces consumers to spend over 150$ or more if you want to get access to full contents within the game when you already have payed 72$ for a triple A title.

    I'm not relating it to single player nor multiplayer, i think it's just not fair in all aspects. It's almost like all of use total war fans are EXPECTED to bend over and pay well over 150$ if they want to get access to all contents.


  • ElectorOfWurttembergElectorOfWurttemberg Posts: 1,064Registered Users
    I am saying it's pay to win. CA is charging for an advantage by having factions that are higher on the balance hierarchy behind a paywall. It may be 'beatable' that doesn't mean it isn't pay to win.

    Especially when you compare say, Greenskins with king and the Warlord vs Greenskins with out it. The former is flat out better.
    What are you, some kind of... FANBOY
  • dge1dge1 Moderator Arkansas, USAPosts: 15,586Registered Users, Moderators, Knights
    OP defined the thread as a Rant so a Rant it is.

    Moved to the proper location/
    "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
  • daelin4daelin4 Senior Member Posts: 15,848Registered Users
    The premise of OP is wrong because while today it could be $20 for DLC for a $72 title, in a few months the price would drop.

    I don't even understand what OP is trying to say. You mean to say that $20 should just be 5, since 20 doesn't seem fair? or the very idea of having DLCs in the first place? What is NOT fair about it?

    If I am so fussed about the price of a product, I can always just wait for a drop or a sale. In that case you'd never have the question of shelling out X amount for Y product, since X is liable to decay over time.

    Hot games like Skyrim took years before a price drop, but that only reflects it's popularity. And even then, it still dropped.

    Corrected action is the most sincere form of apology.
Sign In or Register to comment.