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

When CA tells me that they have 2 different teams but still WH2 DLC/FLC won't come shortly~

124»

Comments

  • Xenos7Xenos7 Posts: 5,176Registered Users
    Crossil said:

    Xenos7 said:

    Nyxilis said:

    Xenos7 said:


    You don't have to look at current active players, you have to look at peak players. It's obvious all games lose players with time, even the most successful ones.

    Peak players still overwhelming supports what I'm saying here. So once more, no idea where you're getting your idea from. Warhammer one was massively over any of their prior games. Warhammer II is still leaps and bounds over that and with DLC still selling it's still making money. Game three can still sell less than 2 and beat other CA titles. Warhammer is with ease their biggest cash cow they've ever done.

    And precisely why they put out that poll some of us got about what titles we want to see. Like, if we want to see more fantasy titles. So they're clearly not marching away from the idea of fantasy. Rather marching towards it and even 3k to some 'romantic' ideas on history to.
    Well, let's look at the actual numbers...

    Rome 2: 118,240
    Warhammer: 111,909
    Warhammer II: 72,112

    That's a 30% decline from the most successful title and the direct predecessor. For comparison, let's look at some other sequel:

    Divinity Orginal Sin Classic: 21,953
    Divinity Original Sin II: 93,350

    Civilization V: 91,020
    Civilization VI: 162,314
    Civ: Beyond Earth: 86,747

    Here you are, BE performed 10% worse than the parent game, was considered a relative failure and abandoned after a single expansion. Warhammer II performed, I repeat, 30% worse.

    Gentlemen, let's stop being in denial, shall we. The game is doing badly and that's the reason we are getting light DLC without monsters like Q&C and a glacial release schedule. No need to search for more elaborate explanations when the numbers are here.
    Which completely ignores how many people DLC for these games brings back. There's a spike every time new DLC gets added, which is a good show of how valuable it is. It also fails to account that the numbers of players for both are exactly the same when looking at the daily numbers in both games(at the time before game 2 there was the exact same number of players of game 1 as there is in game 2 right now). And Rome wasn't good with DLC, in fact none of historical ones was good with DLC. Most you can say is that game 2 didn't sell as many copies but DLC seems to still be as profitable.
    Sure they are profitable. I said that multiple times. If they were publishing unprofitable games out of some artistic vision they would be a charity or a cultural foundation, not a company. It's just that they are less profitable now. It's actually very simple.

    Warhammer I performs above expectations: expanded DLC plans
    Warhammer 2 performs below expectations: reduced DLC plans
  • hanesdavhanesdav Posts: 841Registered Users
    Xenos7 said:

    Crossil said:

    Xenos7 said:

    Nyxilis said:

    Xenos7 said:


    You don't have to look at current active players, you have to look at peak players. It's obvious all games lose players with time, even the most successful ones.

    Peak players still overwhelming supports what I'm saying here. So once more, no idea where you're getting your idea from. Warhammer one was massively over any of their prior games. Warhammer II is still leaps and bounds over that and with DLC still selling it's still making money. Game three can still sell less than 2 and beat other CA titles. Warhammer is with ease their biggest cash cow they've ever done.

    And precisely why they put out that poll some of us got about what titles we want to see. Like, if we want to see more fantasy titles. So they're clearly not marching away from the idea of fantasy. Rather marching towards it and even 3k to some 'romantic' ideas on history to.
    Well, let's look at the actual numbers...

    Rome 2: 118,240
    Warhammer: 111,909
    Warhammer II: 72,112

    That's a 30% decline from the most successful title and the direct predecessor. For comparison, let's look at some other sequel:

    Divinity Orginal Sin Classic: 21,953
    Divinity Original Sin II: 93,350

    Civilization V: 91,020
    Civilization VI: 162,314
    Civ: Beyond Earth: 86,747

    Here you are, BE performed 10% worse than the parent game, was considered a relative failure and abandoned after a single expansion. Warhammer II performed, I repeat, 30% worse.

    Gentlemen, let's stop being in denial, shall we. The game is doing badly and that's the reason we are getting light DLC without monsters like Q&C and a glacial release schedule. No need to search for more elaborate explanations when the numbers are here.
    Which completely ignores how many people DLC for these games brings back. There's a spike every time new DLC gets added, which is a good show of how valuable it is. It also fails to account that the numbers of players for both are exactly the same when looking at the daily numbers in both games(at the time before game 2 there was the exact same number of players of game 1 as there is in game 2 right now). And Rome wasn't good with DLC, in fact none of historical ones was good with DLC. Most you can say is that game 2 didn't sell as many copies but DLC seems to still be as profitable.
    Sure they are profitable. I said that multiple times. If they were publishing unprofitable games out of some artistic vision they would be a charity or a cultural foundation, not a company. It's just that they are less profitable now. It's actually very simple.

    Warhammer I performs above expectations: expanded DLC plans
    Warhammer 2 performs below expectations: reduced DLC plans
    Your numbers do not represent success. You posted all-time peak numbers. They are not very reliable. "No Man's Sky" has 212,613 . According to your logic that game is 3 times more successful than TWW2.
  • Xenos7Xenos7 Posts: 5,176Registered Users
    hanesdav said:

    Xenos7 said:

    Crossil said:

    Xenos7 said:

    Nyxilis said:

    Xenos7 said:


    You don't have to look at current active players, you have to look at peak players. It's obvious all games lose players with time, even the most successful ones.

    Peak players still overwhelming supports what I'm saying here. So once more, no idea where you're getting your idea from. Warhammer one was massively over any of their prior games. Warhammer II is still leaps and bounds over that and with DLC still selling it's still making money. Game three can still sell less than 2 and beat other CA titles. Warhammer is with ease their biggest cash cow they've ever done.

    And precisely why they put out that poll some of us got about what titles we want to see. Like, if we want to see more fantasy titles. So they're clearly not marching away from the idea of fantasy. Rather marching towards it and even 3k to some 'romantic' ideas on history to.
    Well, let's look at the actual numbers...

    Rome 2: 118,240
    Warhammer: 111,909
    Warhammer II: 72,112

    That's a 30% decline from the most successful title and the direct predecessor. For comparison, let's look at some other sequel:

    Divinity Orginal Sin Classic: 21,953
    Divinity Original Sin II: 93,350

    Civilization V: 91,020
    Civilization VI: 162,314
    Civ: Beyond Earth: 86,747

    Here you are, BE performed 10% worse than the parent game, was considered a relative failure and abandoned after a single expansion. Warhammer II performed, I repeat, 30% worse.

    Gentlemen, let's stop being in denial, shall we. The game is doing badly and that's the reason we are getting light DLC without monsters like Q&C and a glacial release schedule. No need to search for more elaborate explanations when the numbers are here.
    Which completely ignores how many people DLC for these games brings back. There's a spike every time new DLC gets added, which is a good show of how valuable it is. It also fails to account that the numbers of players for both are exactly the same when looking at the daily numbers in both games(at the time before game 2 there was the exact same number of players of game 1 as there is in game 2 right now). And Rome wasn't good with DLC, in fact none of historical ones was good with DLC. Most you can say is that game 2 didn't sell as many copies but DLC seems to still be as profitable.
    Sure they are profitable. I said that multiple times. If they were publishing unprofitable games out of some artistic vision they would be a charity or a cultural foundation, not a company. It's just that they are less profitable now. It's actually very simple.

    Warhammer I performs above expectations: expanded DLC plans
    Warhammer 2 performs below expectations: reduced DLC plans
    Your numbers do not represent success. You posted all-time peak numbers. They are not very reliable. "No Man's Sky" has 212,613 . According to your logic that game is 3 times more successful than TWW2.
    Generally speaking, it is. NMS has a bit of a peculiar history with a huge hype followed by huge disappointment, but for most games peaks and drops are fairly regular.
  • NemoxNemox Posts: 2,708Registered Users
    The buildup for Game 2 had CA showing bigger expectations - Game 1 was the gamble and new territory for them, whilst Game 2 was applying what they had learned and improving upon it. Personal preference aside (As I do see much of Game 2 as being better), there has been a clear disappointment for us all in that regard. Both for us having to wait for content that already existed to be ported properly, and for CA spending so much time and money doing that.

    One thing @Vanilla_Gorilla said that I agree with is the irrelevance of how many teams and all that matters is the results. I agree with this, as long as CA produce quality I don't care which group of people take credit. I think the issue some have came from this idea that we should feel better for knowing they have multiple teams...

    I feel a lot better when I have DLC I want to pay for!
  • PoorManatee6197PoorManatee6197 Posts: 486Registered Users
    Xenos7 said:

    Nyxilis said:

    Xenos7 said:


    You don't have to look at current active players, you have to look at peak players. It's obvious all games lose players with time, even the most successful ones.

    Peak players still overwhelming supports what I'm saying here. So once more, no idea where you're getting your idea from. Warhammer one was massively over any of their prior games. Warhammer II is still leaps and bounds over that and with DLC still selling it's still making money. Game three can still sell less than 2 and beat other CA titles. Warhammer is with ease their biggest cash cow they've ever done.

    And precisely why they put out that poll some of us got about what titles we want to see. Like, if we want to see more fantasy titles. So they're clearly not marching away from the idea of fantasy. Rather marching towards it and even 3k to some 'romantic' ideas on history to.
    Well, let's look at the actual numbers...

    Rome 2: 118,240
    Warhammer: 111,909
    Warhammer II: 72,112

    That's a 30% decline from the most successful title and the direct predecessor. For comparison, let's look at some other sequel:

    Divinity Orginal Sin Classic: 21,953
    Divinity Original Sin II: 93,350

    Civilization V: 91,020
    Civilization VI: 162,314
    Civ: Beyond Earth: 86,747

    Here you are, BE performed 10% worse than the parent game, was considered a relative failure and abandoned after a single expansion. Warhammer II performed, I repeat, 30% worse.

    Gentlemen, let's stop being in denial, shall we. The game is doing badly and that's the reason we are getting light DLC without monsters like Q&C and a glacial release schedule. No need to search for more elaborate explanations when the numbers are here.
    Where did you find those numbers?
    #MakeDwarfsGreatAgain Josef Bugman, Thorek Ironbrow, Alrik Ranulfsson, Grimm Burloksson, Kazador, Malakai Makaisson, Gotrek Gurnisson, Dragon/Deamon slayer, Doomseeker, Giant slayers, Thunderbarge, Shieldbearer mount, Master brewer, Goblin Hewer, Norse dwarf war mammoth, Rune Golem, proper Anvil of Doom, Ulther's dragon company, Lond drong's slayer pirates, Everguard, Karak Varn, Karag Agrilwutraz, Silver Pinacle, Karag Dum, Kraka Dorden, Kraka Ornsmotek, Kraka Ravnsvake, Karak Vrag, Karak Azorn, Karak Krakaten.


    Those all missing things are grudges in the great book, is in your hand to settle them, CA. Khazukan kazakit-ha!
  • NyxilisNyxilis Posts: 3,354Registered Users
    What he fails to notice is that second month on Rome II was 37k players, second month on Warhammer II was 72k. It maintains a higher average rate clean through its life. Then spikes again higher than Rome II manages all but once every dlc drop. Rome II only ever gets above 30k players ever again twice. Second month and then way way way down the road. Thrones of Brittania by comparison got less than any of Warhammer II's dlc bumps. And lets not forget the reception of Rome II till they cleaned it up later. Warhammer II has been over it 5 times.

    And Warhammer II's dlc isn't done. We've got a stated confirmed Campaign Pack and Lord Pack on the way. Doesn't include if they decide to add more. And if you haven't noticed Warhammer II players are voraciously more obsessed with getting their dlc because it's about completionism. They want their rosters, their lords, and their armies. Even minor ones. If they dropped an Empire DLC today for 20 bucks that was 4 lords and Wissenland they'd still buy it en mass despite no Middenland. >D

    So yeah, I'm not feeling it. Warhammer II is strong, they are distracted with other titles but they've not forgotten it and I expect we'll still get a solid chunk of dlc yet before game three. Leaving Rome II behind in the dust by a mile. Nor dramatically cut back.

    Because a huge cutback for game three would ignore several variables. It's the last, we know they'll cut support for game II just like they did to game I. They likely have the official round of DLC planned. Lord Packs, some other Campaign pack or race pack. Then they'll be sitting there wondering who or what to do and DLC will largely continue to trickle in. More Lords, more units, in little packs adding nonuber complex things. Overtime those who got only three will snap up the 75% sales that will eventually pop up for game I and II just to get the races. Game III by long term will be the most profitable of titles by simple longevity.
  • Xenos7Xenos7 Posts: 5,176Registered Users

    Xenos7 said:

    Nyxilis said:

    Xenos7 said:


    You don't have to look at current active players, you have to look at peak players. It's obvious all games lose players with time, even the most successful ones.

    Peak players still overwhelming supports what I'm saying here. So once more, no idea where you're getting your idea from. Warhammer one was massively over any of their prior games. Warhammer II is still leaps and bounds over that and with DLC still selling it's still making money. Game three can still sell less than 2 and beat other CA titles. Warhammer is with ease their biggest cash cow they've ever done.

    And precisely why they put out that poll some of us got about what titles we want to see. Like, if we want to see more fantasy titles. So they're clearly not marching away from the idea of fantasy. Rather marching towards it and even 3k to some 'romantic' ideas on history to.
    Well, let's look at the actual numbers...

    Rome 2: 118,240
    Warhammer: 111,909
    Warhammer II: 72,112

    That's a 30% decline from the most successful title and the direct predecessor. For comparison, let's look at some other sequel:

    Divinity Orginal Sin Classic: 21,953
    Divinity Original Sin II: 93,350

    Civilization V: 91,020
    Civilization VI: 162,314
    Civ: Beyond Earth: 86,747

    Here you are, BE performed 10% worse than the parent game, was considered a relative failure and abandoned after a single expansion. Warhammer II performed, I repeat, 30% worse.

    Gentlemen, let's stop being in denial, shall we. The game is doing badly and that's the reason we are getting light DLC without monsters like Q&C and a glacial release schedule. No need to search for more elaborate explanations when the numbers are here.
    Where did you find those numbers?
    Steamcharts.
  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Posts: 1,529Registered Users
    SteamSpy has been my preferred source but as of a few months ago, the break-downs are only available to Patreon supporters. They had a reasonably accurate picture of actual game ownership on Steam and as of last count, no newer Total War had ever caught up to Empire.

    Valve recently announced they would be releasing tools more useful than SteamSpy, so we might actually get even better information, hopefully soon.
  • TennisgolfbollTennisgolfboll Posts: 7,991Registered Users
    edited June 2018
    It is sad that warhammer 2 hasnt outperformed empire or rome 2 at peaks. Warhammer is amazing and much better than both of them combined

    I do hope it is selling better with dlcs etc so we can get more content.

    Read all my replies as if we are having a pint and a good old time. I will always read your reply like that.
  • Gotrek_BeastslayerGotrek_Beastslayer Posts: 1,335Registered Users

    MrMecH said:

    Gotrek meme will continue until community destroyed.

    This should be your signature @Gotrek_Beastslayer
    It's a bit too dark for me...right now :D

    I'll take it into consideration when WH3 will be released (or if Beastmen/WoC won't be updated in any possible way)~




    WH Novels:

    - Vampire Wars: The Von Carstein Trilogy: 10/10
    - Gilead's Blood: 8/10
    - Riders of the Dead: 9/10
    - Empire in Chaos: 9/10
    - Mark of Damnation: 7.5/10
    - Mark of Heresy: 7/10
    - G&F: Trollslayer: 6.5/10
    - G&F: Skavenslayer: 9.5/10
    - G&F: Daemonslayer: 10/10
    - G&F: Dragonslayer: 8/10
    - G&F: Beastslayer: 8.5/10
    - G&F: Vampireslayer: 7/10
    - G&F: Giantslayer: 7.5/10
    - The Chronicles of Malus Darkblade vol. one: 8.5/10
    - Drachenfels: 6.5/10
    - Genevìeve Undead: 7.5/10
    - Silver Nails: 9.5/10
  • Vanilla_GorillaVanilla_Gorilla Posts: 17,250Registered Users
    Xenos7 said:

    Nyxilis said:

    Xenos7 said:


    You don't have to look at current active players, you have to look at peak players. It's obvious all games lose players with time, even the most successful ones.

    Peak players still overwhelming supports what I'm saying here. So once more, no idea where you're getting your idea from. Warhammer one was massively over any of their prior games. Warhammer II is still leaps and bounds over that and with DLC still selling it's still making money. Game three can still sell less than 2 and beat other CA titles. Warhammer is with ease their biggest cash cow they've ever done.

    And precisely why they put out that poll some of us got about what titles we want to see. Like, if we want to see more fantasy titles. So they're clearly not marching away from the idea of fantasy. Rather marching towards it and even 3k to some 'romantic' ideas on history to.
    Well, let's look at the actual numbers...

    Rome 2: 118,240
    Warhammer: 111,909
    Warhammer II: 72,112

    That's a 30% decline from the most successful title and the direct predecessor. For comparison, let's look at some other sequel:

    Divinity Orginal Sin Classic: 21,953
    Divinity Original Sin II: 93,350

    Civilization V: 91,020
    Civilization VI: 162,314
    Civ: Beyond Earth: 86,747

    Here you are, BE performed 10% worse than the parent game, was considered a relative failure and abandoned after a single expansion. Warhammer II performed, I repeat, 30% worse.

    Gentlemen, let's stop being in denial, shall we. The game is doing badly and that's the reason we are getting light DLC without monsters like Q&C and a glacial release schedule. No need to search for more elaborate explanations when the numbers are here.
    Which DLC doesn't have a monster? TK are choc full of them, and Q&C has the Khaithxs.
    Game 3 must have variety in its core races. Ogres, Chaos Dwarfs, Kislev, and Demons of Chaos in its full iconic, glorious, undivided glory.
  • RockNRolla92RockNRolla92 Posts: 738Registered Users
    edited July 2018
    They game has sold well enough, the only reason they would tone down the DLC is if no one buys them.

    Also the reason we aren't getting a schedule like Warhammer 1 is they have so many other things to market at once. Even if they do have separate teams they still need to market everything as one company.

    If you think about it a decent percentage of their Warhammer players could be playing the other games too, if they release so many things at once for different games they might well put people off.

    Game 1 was spolied with the releases every 1.5-2 months. This game is looking like it'll be 3-4 months between DLC.
Sign In or Register to comment.