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

Jabberslythe spotted on a Gamespot video!

13

Comments

  • EquixEquix Posts: 624Registered Users
    sooner o later beastmen will be updated to warhammer 3 demon standards
  • Xenos7Xenos7 Posts: 4,943Registered Users

    It's pretty easy to laud the Jabberslythe when the game will probably only include units from WoC, DoC and BM and a pinch of Empire not much more beyond that at all. Wouldn't trade the TWWH rosters for that.

    Some times ago I replayed Titan Quest in its re-release. It's an average hack'n'slash (I actually don't even like the genre that much) but oh boy, it has an *enormous* variety of monsters. Basically everything from Greek, Egyptian and Chinese folklore. Obviously graphics are basic, but we're talking a decade-old game, and Iron Lore had like 40 employees at most. Still the number of unique models far, far surpasses Warhammer.

    So I think CA is honest when they say that something like the Beastmen DLC costs three times as much to make than their previous DLC. But that doesn't necessarily mean that it's a prohibitive cost. It just means that historical DLC are kinda of a rip-off and they didn't want to sacrifice that overly generous profit margin.
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Posts: 20,668Registered Users
    Xenos7 said:

    It's pretty easy to laud the Jabberslythe when the game will probably only include units from WoC, DoC and BM and a pinch of Empire not much more beyond that at all. Wouldn't trade the TWWH rosters for that.

    Some times ago I replayed Titan Quest in its re-release. It's an average hack'n'slash (I actually don't even like the genre that much) but oh boy, it has an *enormous* variety of monsters. Basically everything from Greek, Egyptian and Chinese folklore. Obviously graphics are basic, but we're talking a decade-old game, and Iron Lore had like 40 employees at most. Still the number of unique models far, far surpasses Warhammer.

    So I think CA is honest when they say that something like the Beastmen DLC costs three times as much to make than their previous DLC. But that doesn't necessarily mean that it's a prohibitive cost. It just means that historical DLC are kinda of a rip-off and they didn't want to sacrifice that overly generous profit margin.
    I know Titan Quest. It's 13 years old so actually on par with Med2. Would you like a Jabberslythe that had Med2 level graphics and animations?

  • Xenos7Xenos7 Posts: 4,943Registered Users

    Xenos7 said:

    It's pretty easy to laud the Jabberslythe when the game will probably only include units from WoC, DoC and BM and a pinch of Empire not much more beyond that at all. Wouldn't trade the TWWH rosters for that.

    Some times ago I replayed Titan Quest in its re-release. It's an average hack'n'slash (I actually don't even like the genre that much) but oh boy, it has an *enormous* variety of monsters. Basically everything from Greek, Egyptian and Chinese folklore. Obviously graphics are basic, but we're talking a decade-old game, and Iron Lore had like 40 employees at most. Still the number of unique models far, far surpasses Warhammer.

    So I think CA is honest when they say that something like the Beastmen DLC costs three times as much to make than their previous DLC. But that doesn't necessarily mean that it's a prohibitive cost. It just means that historical DLC are kinda of a rip-off and they didn't want to sacrifice that overly generous profit margin.
    I know Titan Quest. It's 13 years old so actually on par with Med2. Would you like a Jabberslythe that had Med2 level graphics and animations?
    That wasn't my point.
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Posts: 20,668Registered Users
    Xenos7 said:

    Xenos7 said:

    It's pretty easy to laud the Jabberslythe when the game will probably only include units from WoC, DoC and BM and a pinch of Empire not much more beyond that at all. Wouldn't trade the TWWH rosters for that.

    Some times ago I replayed Titan Quest in its re-release. It's an average hack'n'slash (I actually don't even like the genre that much) but oh boy, it has an *enormous* variety of monsters. Basically everything from Greek, Egyptian and Chinese folklore. Obviously graphics are basic, but we're talking a decade-old game, and Iron Lore had like 40 employees at most. Still the number of unique models far, far surpasses Warhammer.

    So I think CA is honest when they say that something like the Beastmen DLC costs three times as much to make than their previous DLC. But that doesn't necessarily mean that it's a prohibitive cost. It just means that historical DLC are kinda of a rip-off and they didn't want to sacrifice that overly generous profit margin.
    I know Titan Quest. It's 13 years old so actually on par with Med2. Would you like a Jabberslythe that had Med2 level graphics and animations?
    That wasn't my point.
    The point is that if WH had to work with 13 year old technology, they probably could also create more monsters because it would be a lot cheaper. I mean I could probably mould, rig, animate and texture something resembling 13 year old game models with just free programs like **** and Blender.

  • Xenos7Xenos7 Posts: 4,943Registered Users

    Xenos7 said:

    Xenos7 said:

    It's pretty easy to laud the Jabberslythe when the game will probably only include units from WoC, DoC and BM and a pinch of Empire not much more beyond that at all. Wouldn't trade the TWWH rosters for that.

    Some times ago I replayed Titan Quest in its re-release. It's an average hack'n'slash (I actually don't even like the genre that much) but oh boy, it has an *enormous* variety of monsters. Basically everything from Greek, Egyptian and Chinese folklore. Obviously graphics are basic, but we're talking a decade-old game, and Iron Lore had like 40 employees at most. Still the number of unique models far, far surpasses Warhammer.

    So I think CA is honest when they say that something like the Beastmen DLC costs three times as much to make than their previous DLC. But that doesn't necessarily mean that it's a prohibitive cost. It just means that historical DLC are kinda of a rip-off and they didn't want to sacrifice that overly generous profit margin.
    I know Titan Quest. It's 13 years old so actually on par with Med2. Would you like a Jabberslythe that had Med2 level graphics and animations?
    That wasn't my point.
    The point is that if WH had to work with 13 year old technology, they probably could also create more monsters because it would be a lot cheaper. I mean I could probably mould, rig, animate and texture something resembling 13 year old game models with just free programs like **** and Blender.
    While production costs got higher in the industry, the same happened to revenues, due to the increased popularity of the hobby. Following your reasoning, we would expect for AAA games to have a progressively lower RoI with each iteration, but instead it's the opposite.
  • RethmarRethmar Posts: 49Registered Users
    I'll be getting that Chaosbane.
  • Vanilla_GorillaVanilla_Gorilla Posts: 16,379Registered Users
    edited February 5
    Xenos7 said:

    Xenos7 said:

    Xenos7 said:

    It's pretty easy to laud the Jabberslythe when the game will probably only include units from WoC, DoC and BM and a pinch of Empire not much more beyond that at all. Wouldn't trade the TWWH rosters for that.

    Some times ago I replayed Titan Quest in its re-release. It's an average hack'n'slash (I actually don't even like the genre that much) but oh boy, it has an *enormous* variety of monsters. Basically everything from Greek, Egyptian and Chinese folklore. Obviously graphics are basic, but we're talking a decade-old game, and Iron Lore had like 40 employees at most. Still the number of unique models far, far surpasses Warhammer.

    So I think CA is honest when they say that something like the Beastmen DLC costs three times as much to make than their previous DLC. But that doesn't necessarily mean that it's a prohibitive cost. It just means that historical DLC are kinda of a rip-off and they didn't want to sacrifice that overly generous profit margin.
    I know Titan Quest. It's 13 years old so actually on par with Med2. Would you like a Jabberslythe that had Med2 level graphics and animations?
    That wasn't my point.
    The point is that if WH had to work with 13 year old technology, they probably could also create more monsters because it would be a lot cheaper. I mean I could probably mould, rig, animate and texture something resembling 13 year old game models with just free programs like **** and Blender.
    While production costs got higher in the industry, the same happened to revenues, due to the increased popularity of the hobby. Following your reasoning, we would expect for AAA games to have a progressively lower RoI with each iteration, but instead it's the opposite.
    Do you have data showing that for medieval and TWW?

    ED's logic seems simple; low quality graphics like this one are cheaper to make than high quality like TWW's. I don't see a counter to that.
    Game 3 must have variety in its core races. Ogres, Chaos Dwarfs, Kislev, and Demons of Chaos in its full iconic, glorious, undivided glory.
  • GwydionGwydion Senior Member Posts: 2,161Registered Users
    I feel like every 2 statements CA makes.... something happens that ends up shoving one back down its throat skull**** kinda style. C'mon CA. Step up to the plate!
    PLEASE CA!!! Chaos Warriors need a faction that is not horde only by the time the trilogy is finished! We beg of you!

    Just Realized this topic has been viewed more, the topic of " Limiting Race Expansion/ Colonization Expansion" alone than more than half of the stickied things at the top of the forum... I hope you are too CA and I mean that in a positive way from a huge fan!

    Please improve sieges! Add racial flavor and ACTUALLY make them "deeper rather than wide" copy and paste with different art needs to go!
  • KelefaneKelefane Posts: 1,300Registered Users
    If this small Indie studio can do it then so can CA. No excuses. Just laziness on CA's part not to at this point.
  • MaedrethnirMaedrethnir Senior Member Posts: 5,259Registered Users

    Xenos7 said:

    Xenos7 said:

    Xenos7 said:

    It's pretty easy to laud the Jabberslythe when the game will probably only include units from WoC, DoC and BM and a pinch of Empire not much more beyond that at all. Wouldn't trade the TWWH rosters for that.

    Some times ago I replayed Titan Quest in its re-release. It's an average hack'n'slash (I actually don't even like the genre that much) but oh boy, it has an *enormous* variety of monsters. Basically everything from Greek, Egyptian and Chinese folklore. Obviously graphics are basic, but we're talking a decade-old game, and Iron Lore had like 40 employees at most. Still the number of unique models far, far surpasses Warhammer.

    So I think CA is honest when they say that something like the Beastmen DLC costs three times as much to make than their previous DLC. But that doesn't necessarily mean that it's a prohibitive cost. It just means that historical DLC are kinda of a rip-off and they didn't want to sacrifice that overly generous profit margin.
    I know Titan Quest. It's 13 years old so actually on par with Med2. Would you like a Jabberslythe that had Med2 level graphics and animations?
    That wasn't my point.
    The point is that if WH had to work with 13 year old technology, they probably could also create more monsters because it would be a lot cheaper. I mean I could probably mould, rig, animate and texture something resembling 13 year old game models with just free programs like **** and Blender.
    While production costs got higher in the industry, the same happened to revenues, due to the increased popularity of the hobby. Following your reasoning, we would expect for AAA games to have a progressively lower RoI with each iteration, but instead it's the opposite.
    Do you have data showing that for medieval and TWW?

    ED's logic seems simple; low quality graphics like this one are cheaper to make than high quality like TWW's. I don't see a counter to that.
    Chaosbane's graphics are not lower quality. Sure, Jabber could use more animations but that's it.
    Drowned in stars, bloated we shine.
    ... .... .... --··-- -. --- - . .- .-. ... ·-·-·- --- -. .-.. -.-- -.. .-. . .- -- ... -. --- .-- ·-·-·-

  • DraxynnicDraxynnic Posts: 5,805Registered Users

    It's pretty easy to laud the Jabberslythe when the game will probably only include units from WoC, DoC and BM and a pinch of Empire not much more beyond that at all. Wouldn't trade the TWWH rosters for that.

    Pretty much what I was thinking. I could see them squeezing skaven in, but they're pretty much entirely focusing on Chaos, so it makes sense that they'd use everything available, while TWW is aiming to ultimately have everything represented, but has significant gaps in most rosters.
  • Vanilla_GorillaVanilla_Gorilla Posts: 16,379Registered Users
    edited February 5
    Kelefane said:

    If this small Indie studio can do it then so can CA. No excuses. Just laziness on CA's part not to at this point.

    That argument doesn't make sense. CA can do it. R8esources are the claimed issue not ability. The only way to prove or disprove this is to look at their available resources, something none of us can do.

    While I want the Jabber more than anyone it being included in this game means nothing for TWW. It's certainly not an excuse to hurl insults.
    Game 3 must have variety in its core races. Ogres, Chaos Dwarfs, Kislev, and Demons of Chaos in its full iconic, glorious, undivided glory.
  • AvadonAvadon Posts: 1,543Registered Users
    Hmmm...so slayers in that game have armour based upon...beards and tattoos...


    Interesting...CA must implement this...

  • Xenos7Xenos7 Posts: 4,943Registered Users

    Xenos7 said:

    Xenos7 said:

    Xenos7 said:

    It's pretty easy to laud the Jabberslythe when the game will probably only include units from WoC, DoC and BM and a pinch of Empire not much more beyond that at all. Wouldn't trade the TWWH rosters for that.

    Some times ago I replayed Titan Quest in its re-release. It's an average hack'n'slash (I actually don't even like the genre that much) but oh boy, it has an *enormous* variety of monsters. Basically everything from Greek, Egyptian and Chinese folklore. Obviously graphics are basic, but we're talking a decade-old game, and Iron Lore had like 40 employees at most. Still the number of unique models far, far surpasses Warhammer.

    So I think CA is honest when they say that something like the Beastmen DLC costs three times as much to make than their previous DLC. But that doesn't necessarily mean that it's a prohibitive cost. It just means that historical DLC are kinda of a rip-off and they didn't want to sacrifice that overly generous profit margin.
    I know Titan Quest. It's 13 years old so actually on par with Med2. Would you like a Jabberslythe that had Med2 level graphics and animations?
    That wasn't my point.
    The point is that if WH had to work with 13 year old technology, they probably could also create more monsters because it would be a lot cheaper. I mean I could probably mould, rig, animate and texture something resembling 13 year old game models with just free programs like **** and Blender.
    While production costs got higher in the industry, the same happened to revenues, due to the increased popularity of the hobby. Following your reasoning, we would expect for AAA games to have a progressively lower RoI with each iteration, but instead it's the opposite.
    Do you have data showing that for medieval and TWW?

    ED's logic seems simple; low quality graphics like this one are cheaper to make than high quality like TWW's. I don't see a counter to that.
    Sure. I have the fact that the company grew in size in the last years and acquired subsidiaries like the Sofia studio. Never heard of a business expanding without an increase in revenue stream to support the move.
  • GingerRoeBroGingerRoeBro Senior Member Posts: 3,037Registered Users
    edited February 5
    A Jabber? But, the charlamanges!!!!
    Bigger Budget for game 3?

    They're gonna need it for all of the monogod glory.
    Which will be the "4 distinct gods representing the different aspects of Chaos such as Khorne, Slaanesh, Tzeentch, and Nurgle." :blush: ^CA quote

    Thank you CA for seeing them as what they truly are.
    Let the Games Begin!
    https://warhammerfantasy.fandom.com/wiki/The_Great_Game
  • Vanilla_GorillaVanilla_Gorilla Posts: 16,379Registered Users
    Xenos7 said:

    Xenos7 said:

    Xenos7 said:

    Xenos7 said:

    It's pretty easy to laud the Jabberslythe when the game will probably only include units from WoC, DoC and BM and a pinch of Empire not much more beyond that at all. Wouldn't trade the TWWH rosters for that.

    Some times ago I replayed Titan Quest in its re-release. It's an average hack'n'slash (I actually don't even like the genre that much) but oh boy, it has an *enormous* variety of monsters. Basically everything from Greek, Egyptian and Chinese folklore. Obviously graphics are basic, but we're talking a decade-old game, and Iron Lore had like 40 employees at most. Still the number of unique models far, far surpasses Warhammer.

    So I think CA is honest when they say that something like the Beastmen DLC costs three times as much to make than their previous DLC. But that doesn't necessarily mean that it's a prohibitive cost. It just means that historical DLC are kinda of a rip-off and they didn't want to sacrifice that overly generous profit margin.
    I know Titan Quest. It's 13 years old so actually on par with Med2. Would you like a Jabberslythe that had Med2 level graphics and animations?
    That wasn't my point.
    The point is that if WH had to work with 13 year old technology, they probably could also create more monsters because it would be a lot cheaper. I mean I could probably mould, rig, animate and texture something resembling 13 year old game models with just free programs like **** and Blender.
    While production costs got higher in the industry, the same happened to revenues, due to the increased popularity of the hobby. Following your reasoning, we would expect for AAA games to have a progressively lower RoI with each iteration, but instead it's the opposite.
    Do you have data showing that for medieval and TWW?

    ED's logic seems simple; low quality graphics like this one are cheaper to make than high quality like TWW's. I don't see a counter to that.
    Sure. I have the fact that the company grew in size in the last years and acquired subsidiaries like the Sofia studio. Never heard of a business expanding without an increase in revenue stream to support the move.
    That's a no then. Combined with this not even being a counter to the point in the first place.
    Game 3 must have variety in its core races. Ogres, Chaos Dwarfs, Kislev, and Demons of Chaos in its full iconic, glorious, undivided glory.
  • Xenos7Xenos7 Posts: 4,943Registered Users

    Xenos7 said:

    Xenos7 said:

    Xenos7 said:

    Xenos7 said:

    It's pretty easy to laud the Jabberslythe when the game will probably only include units from WoC, DoC and BM and a pinch of Empire not much more beyond that at all. Wouldn't trade the TWWH rosters for that.

    Some times ago I replayed Titan Quest in its re-release. It's an average hack'n'slash (I actually don't even like the genre that much) but oh boy, it has an *enormous* variety of monsters. Basically everything from Greek, Egyptian and Chinese folklore. Obviously graphics are basic, but we're talking a decade-old game, and Iron Lore had like 40 employees at most. Still the number of unique models far, far surpasses Warhammer.

    So I think CA is honest when they say that something like the Beastmen DLC costs three times as much to make than their previous DLC. But that doesn't necessarily mean that it's a prohibitive cost. It just means that historical DLC are kinda of a rip-off and they didn't want to sacrifice that overly generous profit margin.
    I know Titan Quest. It's 13 years old so actually on par with Med2. Would you like a Jabberslythe that had Med2 level graphics and animations?
    That wasn't my point.
    The point is that if WH had to work with 13 year old technology, they probably could also create more monsters because it would be a lot cheaper. I mean I could probably mould, rig, animate and texture something resembling 13 year old game models with just free programs like **** and Blender.
    While production costs got higher in the industry, the same happened to revenues, due to the increased popularity of the hobby. Following your reasoning, we would expect for AAA games to have a progressively lower RoI with each iteration, but instead it's the opposite.
    Do you have data showing that for medieval and TWW?

    ED's logic seems simple; low quality graphics like this one are cheaper to make than high quality like TWW's. I don't see a counter to that.
    Sure. I have the fact that the company grew in size in the last years and acquired subsidiaries like the Sofia studio. Never heard of a business expanding without an increase in revenue stream to support the move.
    That's a no then. Combined with this not even being a counter to the point in the first place.
    So I guess in your pocket universe philosophers and logicians never figured out inductive reasoning. Quite a strange epistemology you must have down there.
  • Commissar_GCommissar_G Senior Member Posts: 10,049Registered Users
    Someone needs to go through this thread and replace every time somebody has said "lazy" and swap it with "greedy".

    The Jabberslythe wasn't cut because some CA employees couldn't be bothered doing the animations on a cold and dark Tuesday winter morning.

    We literally only got the Abom and the extra WoC units because some good folks at CA actually wanted a good game, despite the meanness of their overlords.
    "As a sandbox game everyone, without exception, should be able to play the game exactly as they see fit and that means providing the maximum scope possible." - ~UNiOnJaCk~
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Posts: 20,668Registered Users
    edited February 5
    Xenos7 said:

    Xenos7 said:

    Xenos7 said:

    It's pretty easy to laud the Jabberslythe when the game will probably only include units from WoC, DoC and BM and a pinch of Empire not much more beyond that at all. Wouldn't trade the TWWH rosters for that.

    Some times ago I replayed Titan Quest in its re-release. It's an average hack'n'slash (I actually don't even like the genre that much) but oh boy, it has an *enormous* variety of monsters. Basically everything from Greek, Egyptian and Chinese folklore. Obviously graphics are basic, but we're talking a decade-old game, and Iron Lore had like 40 employees at most. Still the number of unique models far, far surpasses Warhammer.

    So I think CA is honest when they say that something like the Beastmen DLC costs three times as much to make than their previous DLC. But that doesn't necessarily mean that it's a prohibitive cost. It just means that historical DLC are kinda of a rip-off and they didn't want to sacrifice that overly generous profit margin.
    I know Titan Quest. It's 13 years old so actually on par with Med2. Would you like a Jabberslythe that had Med2 level graphics and animations?
    That wasn't my point.
    The point is that if WH had to work with 13 year old technology, they probably could also create more monsters because it would be a lot cheaper. I mean I could probably mould, rig, animate and texture something resembling 13 year old game models with just free programs like **** and Blender.
    While production costs got higher in the industry, the same happened to revenues, due to the increased popularity of the hobby. Following your reasoning, we would expect for AAA games to have a progressively lower RoI with each iteration, but instead it's the opposite.
    Ehm, you are aware of the whole DLC shebang that wasn't so big 13 years ago but really is now? Games are actually undercosted at the moment or do you think WH2 cost just as much as Med2 to create?

  • Xenos7Xenos7 Posts: 4,943Registered Users

    Xenos7 said:

    Xenos7 said:

    Xenos7 said:

    It's pretty easy to laud the Jabberslythe when the game will probably only include units from WoC, DoC and BM and a pinch of Empire not much more beyond that at all. Wouldn't trade the TWWH rosters for that.

    Some times ago I replayed Titan Quest in its re-release. It's an average hack'n'slash (I actually don't even like the genre that much) but oh boy, it has an *enormous* variety of monsters. Basically everything from Greek, Egyptian and Chinese folklore. Obviously graphics are basic, but we're talking a decade-old game, and Iron Lore had like 40 employees at most. Still the number of unique models far, far surpasses Warhammer.

    So I think CA is honest when they say that something like the Beastmen DLC costs three times as much to make than their previous DLC. But that doesn't necessarily mean that it's a prohibitive cost. It just means that historical DLC are kinda of a rip-off and they didn't want to sacrifice that overly generous profit margin.
    I know Titan Quest. It's 13 years old so actually on par with Med2. Would you like a Jabberslythe that had Med2 level graphics and animations?
    That wasn't my point.
    The point is that if WH had to work with 13 year old technology, they probably could also create more monsters because it would be a lot cheaper. I mean I could probably mould, rig, animate and texture something resembling 13 year old game models with just free programs like **** and Blender.
    While production costs got higher in the industry, the same happened to revenues, due to the increased popularity of the hobby. Following your reasoning, we would expect for AAA games to have a progressively lower RoI with each iteration, but instead it's the opposite.
    Ehm, you are aware of the whole DLC shebang that wasn't so big 13 years ago but really is now? Games are actually undercosted at the moment or do you think WH2 cost just as much as Med2 to create?
    I think it costed much more. I also think it earned much more. CA grew substantially since the time of Med2, and that obviously points to an increase in profit. It's not like companies have the habit of hiring more people when they are losing money. That would also be in line with the rest of the industry. Arena was surely cheaper to make than Skyrim, but which one in the end racked more money for Bethesda? Even without accounting for DLC.
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Posts: 20,668Registered Users
    Xenos7 said:

    Xenos7 said:

    Xenos7 said:

    Xenos7 said:

    It's pretty easy to laud the Jabberslythe when the game will probably only include units from WoC, DoC and BM and a pinch of Empire not much more beyond that at all. Wouldn't trade the TWWH rosters for that.

    Some times ago I replayed Titan Quest in its re-release. It's an average hack'n'slash (I actually don't even like the genre that much) but oh boy, it has an *enormous* variety of monsters. Basically everything from Greek, Egyptian and Chinese folklore. Obviously graphics are basic, but we're talking a decade-old game, and Iron Lore had like 40 employees at most. Still the number of unique models far, far surpasses Warhammer.

    So I think CA is honest when they say that something like the Beastmen DLC costs three times as much to make than their previous DLC. But that doesn't necessarily mean that it's a prohibitive cost. It just means that historical DLC are kinda of a rip-off and they didn't want to sacrifice that overly generous profit margin.
    I know Titan Quest. It's 13 years old so actually on par with Med2. Would you like a Jabberslythe that had Med2 level graphics and animations?
    That wasn't my point.
    The point is that if WH had to work with 13 year old technology, they probably could also create more monsters because it would be a lot cheaper. I mean I could probably mould, rig, animate and texture something resembling 13 year old game models with just free programs like **** and Blender.
    While production costs got higher in the industry, the same happened to revenues, due to the increased popularity of the hobby. Following your reasoning, we would expect for AAA games to have a progressively lower RoI with each iteration, but instead it's the opposite.
    Ehm, you are aware of the whole DLC shebang that wasn't so big 13 years ago but really is now? Games are actually undercosted at the moment or do you think WH2 cost just as much as Med2 to create?
    I think it costed much more. I also think it earned much more. CA grew substantially since the time of Med2, and that obviously points to an increase in profit. It's not like companies have the habit of hiring more people when they are losing money. That would also be in line with the rest of the industry. Arena was surely cheaper to make than Skyrim, but which one in the end racked more money for Bethesda? Even without accounting for DLC.
    Point is costs have flown up higher than profits in the meantime too. Why do you think so many indie developers go for retro graphics rather than challenging the graphic fidelity of AAA titles? Videogame costs have not gone up for what, 30 years now? I remember how much I used to pay for stuff like the first Wing Commander when it was new and when adjusted for inflation, games have actually become absurdly cheap without factoring in post-launch content. CA being bigger also means more costs for office space and salaries.

  • Xenos7Xenos7 Posts: 4,943Registered Users

    Xenos7 said:

    Xenos7 said:

    Xenos7 said:

    Xenos7 said:

    It's pretty easy to laud the Jabberslythe when the game will probably only include units from WoC, DoC and BM and a pinch of Empire not much more beyond that at all. Wouldn't trade the TWWH rosters for that.

    Some times ago I replayed Titan Quest in its re-release. It's an average hack'n'slash (I actually don't even like the genre that much) but oh boy, it has an *enormous* variety of monsters. Basically everything from Greek, Egyptian and Chinese folklore. Obviously graphics are basic, but we're talking a decade-old game, and Iron Lore had like 40 employees at most. Still the number of unique models far, far surpasses Warhammer.

    So I think CA is honest when they say that something like the Beastmen DLC costs three times as much to make than their previous DLC. But that doesn't necessarily mean that it's a prohibitive cost. It just means that historical DLC are kinda of a rip-off and they didn't want to sacrifice that overly generous profit margin.
    I know Titan Quest. It's 13 years old so actually on par with Med2. Would you like a Jabberslythe that had Med2 level graphics and animations?
    That wasn't my point.
    The point is that if WH had to work with 13 year old technology, they probably could also create more monsters because it would be a lot cheaper. I mean I could probably mould, rig, animate and texture something resembling 13 year old game models with just free programs like **** and Blender.
    While production costs got higher in the industry, the same happened to revenues, due to the increased popularity of the hobby. Following your reasoning, we would expect for AAA games to have a progressively lower RoI with each iteration, but instead it's the opposite.
    Ehm, you are aware of the whole DLC shebang that wasn't so big 13 years ago but really is now? Games are actually undercosted at the moment or do you think WH2 cost just as much as Med2 to create?
    I think it costed much more. I also think it earned much more. CA grew substantially since the time of Med2, and that obviously points to an increase in profit. It's not like companies have the habit of hiring more people when they are losing money. That would also be in line with the rest of the industry. Arena was surely cheaper to make than Skyrim, but which one in the end racked more money for Bethesda? Even without accounting for DLC.
    Point is costs have flown up higher than profits in the meantime too. Why do you think so many indie developers go for retro graphics rather than challenging the graphic fidelity of AAA titles? Videogame costs have not gone up for what, 30 years now? I remember how much I used to pay for stuff like the first Wing Commander when it was new and when adjusted for inflation, games have actually become absurdly cheap without factoring in post-launch content. CA being bigger also means more costs for office space and salaries.
    So, let me understand this. Are you really saying that CA in 2019 is earning less than CA in 2006? Because as of now it has a net income of 16 millions $ per year: http://www.hoovers.com/company-information/cs/company-profile.the_creative_assembly_limited.e4acaa0a49d23612.html?aka_re=1

    If you can find a figure about Medieval 2 making that much money, I'm all hears.
  • EnforestEnforest Posts: 1,994Registered Users
    edited February 5

    Why do you think so many indie developers go for retro graphics rather than challenging the graphic fidelity of AAA titles?

    Because retro style is visually appealing to most people (me included) and many gamers enjoy nostalgia vibes? I wouldn't even touch Mother Russia Bleeds if it had "photorealistic" graphics instead of awesome pixel art.

    Besides, there are indie developers that make great graphics for their producs, for example F2P Warframe has as good, if not better graphics than 60 bucks "AAA" Anthem. I played demo on ultras and it was horrible, with overly generated texture and low quality props everywhere.

    CA being bigger also means more costs for office space and salaries.

    And you imply that CA managers are unaware of that when they expand and add new branches for the company, making revenue stagnant for decades?


    Demand more love for Empire, Greenskins and Beastmen! Playable Middenland with Cult of Ulric! Expanded Beastmen roster with Ghorgon and Jabberslythe! Bring back Black Orcs variants and Orc Big Boss heroes!
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Posts: 20,668Registered Users
    Xenos7 said:

    Xenos7 said:

    Xenos7 said:

    Xenos7 said:

    Xenos7 said:

    It's pretty easy to laud the Jabberslythe when the game will probably only include units from WoC, DoC and BM and a pinch of Empire not much more beyond that at all. Wouldn't trade the TWWH rosters for that.

    Some times ago I replayed Titan Quest in its re-release. It's an average hack'n'slash (I actually don't even like the genre that much) but oh boy, it has an *enormous* variety of monsters. Basically everything from Greek, Egyptian and Chinese folklore. Obviously graphics are basic, but we're talking a decade-old game, and Iron Lore had like 40 employees at most. Still the number of unique models far, far surpasses Warhammer.

    So I think CA is honest when they say that something like the Beastmen DLC costs three times as much to make than their previous DLC. But that doesn't necessarily mean that it's a prohibitive cost. It just means that historical DLC are kinda of a rip-off and they didn't want to sacrifice that overly generous profit margin.
    I know Titan Quest. It's 13 years old so actually on par with Med2. Would you like a Jabberslythe that had Med2 level graphics and animations?
    That wasn't my point.
    The point is that if WH had to work with 13 year old technology, they probably could also create more monsters because it would be a lot cheaper. I mean I could probably mould, rig, animate and texture something resembling 13 year old game models with just free programs like **** and Blender.
    While production costs got higher in the industry, the same happened to revenues, due to the increased popularity of the hobby. Following your reasoning, we would expect for AAA games to have a progressively lower RoI with each iteration, but instead it's the opposite.
    Ehm, you are aware of the whole DLC shebang that wasn't so big 13 years ago but really is now? Games are actually undercosted at the moment or do you think WH2 cost just as much as Med2 to create?
    I think it costed much more. I also think it earned much more. CA grew substantially since the time of Med2, and that obviously points to an increase in profit. It's not like companies have the habit of hiring more people when they are losing money. That would also be in line with the rest of the industry. Arena was surely cheaper to make than Skyrim, but which one in the end racked more money for Bethesda? Even without accounting for DLC.
    Point is costs have flown up higher than profits in the meantime too. Why do you think so many indie developers go for retro graphics rather than challenging the graphic fidelity of AAA titles? Videogame costs have not gone up for what, 30 years now? I remember how much I used to pay for stuff like the first Wing Commander when it was new and when adjusted for inflation, games have actually become absurdly cheap without factoring in post-launch content. CA being bigger also means more costs for office space and salaries.
    So, let me understand this. Are you really saying that CA in 2019 is earning less than CA in 2006? Because as of now it has a net income of 16 millions $ per year: http://www.hoovers.com/company-information/cs/company-profile.the_creative_assembly_limited.e4acaa0a49d23612.html?aka_re=1

    If you can find a figure about Medieval 2 making that much money, I'm all hears.
    What did they earn in 2006 and how figures it against their expenses then? Just listing one number by itself is pretty futile. They could have earned less total in 2006 and yet made a better profit margin, but to find that out you also have to put those numbers up.

  • Xenos7Xenos7 Posts: 4,943Registered Users

    Xenos7 said:

    Xenos7 said:

    Xenos7 said:

    Xenos7 said:

    Xenos7 said:

    It's pretty easy to laud the Jabberslythe when the game will probably only include units from WoC, DoC and BM and a pinch of Empire not much more beyond that at all. Wouldn't trade the TWWH rosters for that.

    Some times ago I replayed Titan Quest in its re-release. It's an average hack'n'slash (I actually don't even like the genre that much) but oh boy, it has an *enormous* variety of monsters. Basically everything from Greek, Egyptian and Chinese folklore. Obviously graphics are basic, but we're talking a decade-old game, and Iron Lore had like 40 employees at most. Still the number of unique models far, far surpasses Warhammer.

    So I think CA is honest when they say that something like the Beastmen DLC costs three times as much to make than their previous DLC. But that doesn't necessarily mean that it's a prohibitive cost. It just means that historical DLC are kinda of a rip-off and they didn't want to sacrifice that overly generous profit margin.
    I know Titan Quest. It's 13 years old so actually on par with Med2. Would you like a Jabberslythe that had Med2 level graphics and animations?
    That wasn't my point.
    The point is that if WH had to work with 13 year old technology, they probably could also create more monsters because it would be a lot cheaper. I mean I could probably mould, rig, animate and texture something resembling 13 year old game models with just free programs like **** and Blender.
    While production costs got higher in the industry, the same happened to revenues, due to the increased popularity of the hobby. Following your reasoning, we would expect for AAA games to have a progressively lower RoI with each iteration, but instead it's the opposite.
    Ehm, you are aware of the whole DLC shebang that wasn't so big 13 years ago but really is now? Games are actually undercosted at the moment or do you think WH2 cost just as much as Med2 to create?
    I think it costed much more. I also think it earned much more. CA grew substantially since the time of Med2, and that obviously points to an increase in profit. It's not like companies have the habit of hiring more people when they are losing money. That would also be in line with the rest of the industry. Arena was surely cheaper to make than Skyrim, but which one in the end racked more money for Bethesda? Even without accounting for DLC.
    Point is costs have flown up higher than profits in the meantime too. Why do you think so many indie developers go for retro graphics rather than challenging the graphic fidelity of AAA titles? Videogame costs have not gone up for what, 30 years now? I remember how much I used to pay for stuff like the first Wing Commander when it was new and when adjusted for inflation, games have actually become absurdly cheap without factoring in post-launch content. CA being bigger also means more costs for office space and salaries.
    So, let me understand this. Are you really saying that CA in 2019 is earning less than CA in 2006? Because as of now it has a net income of 16 millions $ per year: http://www.hoovers.com/company-information/cs/company-profile.the_creative_assembly_limited.e4acaa0a49d23612.html?aka_re=1

    If you can find a figure about Medieval 2 making that much money, I'm all hears.
    What did they earn in 2006 and how figures it against their expenses then? Just listing one number by itself is pretty futile. They could have earned less total in 2006 and yet made a better profit margin, but to find that out you also have to put those numbers up.
    Can't find them, obviously, otherwise I would have posted them. But it seems to me quite incredible that Medieval II (released in 2006) could have earned them that kind of money. The gross revenue is 66 millions. That would mean 1.320.000 copies at full 50$ price.

    Besides that, it doesn't make any sense to suppose CA is still expanding while earning progressively less. I don't know of a single company behaving that way: if you're earning less and less common business wisdom dictates downsizing, not expanding. How could it even be sustainable to do otherwise from a financial standpoint?
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Posts: 20,668Registered Users
    Xenos7 said:

    Xenos7 said:

    Xenos7 said:

    Xenos7 said:

    Xenos7 said:

    Xenos7 said:

    It's pretty easy to laud the Jabberslythe when the game will probably only include units from WoC, DoC and BM and a pinch of Empire not much more beyond that at all. Wouldn't trade the TWWH rosters for that.

    Some times ago I replayed Titan Quest in its re-release. It's an average hack'n'slash (I actually don't even like the genre that much) but oh boy, it has an *enormous* variety of monsters. Basically everything from Greek, Egyptian and Chinese folklore. Obviously graphics are basic, but we're talking a decade-old game, and Iron Lore had like 40 employees at most. Still the number of unique models far, far surpasses Warhammer.

    So I think CA is honest when they say that something like the Beastmen DLC costs three times as much to make than their previous DLC. But that doesn't necessarily mean that it's a prohibitive cost. It just means that historical DLC are kinda of a rip-off and they didn't want to sacrifice that overly generous profit margin.
    I know Titan Quest. It's 13 years old so actually on par with Med2. Would you like a Jabberslythe that had Med2 level graphics and animations?
    That wasn't my point.
    The point is that if WH had to work with 13 year old technology, they probably could also create more monsters because it would be a lot cheaper. I mean I could probably mould, rig, animate and texture something resembling 13 year old game models with just free programs like **** and Blender.
    While production costs got higher in the industry, the same happened to revenues, due to the increased popularity of the hobby. Following your reasoning, we would expect for AAA games to have a progressively lower RoI with each iteration, but instead it's the opposite.
    Ehm, you are aware of the whole DLC shebang that wasn't so big 13 years ago but really is now? Games are actually undercosted at the moment or do you think WH2 cost just as much as Med2 to create?
    I think it costed much more. I also think it earned much more. CA grew substantially since the time of Med2, and that obviously points to an increase in profit. It's not like companies have the habit of hiring more people when they are losing money. That would also be in line with the rest of the industry. Arena was surely cheaper to make than Skyrim, but which one in the end racked more money for Bethesda? Even without accounting for DLC.
    Point is costs have flown up higher than profits in the meantime too. Why do you think so many indie developers go for retro graphics rather than challenging the graphic fidelity of AAA titles? Videogame costs have not gone up for what, 30 years now? I remember how much I used to pay for stuff like the first Wing Commander when it was new and when adjusted for inflation, games have actually become absurdly cheap without factoring in post-launch content. CA being bigger also means more costs for office space and salaries.
    So, let me understand this. Are you really saying that CA in 2019 is earning less than CA in 2006? Because as of now it has a net income of 16 millions $ per year: http://www.hoovers.com/company-information/cs/company-profile.the_creative_assembly_limited.e4acaa0a49d23612.html?aka_re=1

    If you can find a figure about Medieval 2 making that much money, I'm all hears.
    What did they earn in 2006 and how figures it against their expenses then? Just listing one number by itself is pretty futile. They could have earned less total in 2006 and yet made a better profit margin, but to find that out you also have to put those numbers up.
    Can't find them, obviously, otherwise I would have posted them. But it seems to me quite incredible that Medieval II (released in 2006) could have earned them that kind of money. The gross revenue is 66 millions. That would mean 1.320.000 copies at full 50$ price.

    Besides that, it doesn't make any sense to suppose CA is still expanding while earning progressively less. I don't know of a single company behaving that way: if you're earning less and less common business wisdom dictates downsizing, not expanding. How could it even be sustainable to do otherwise from a financial standpoint?
    It isn't about the gross number of what Med2 earned them in 2006, it's about how large the profit margin for it was. For TWWH the profit margin is automatically smaller because they have to share with the license holders even if it's a larger gross number. The first TWWH was a gamble with a pretty "safe" budget, hence why the game feels so mechanically downgraded and "small" from other TW titles. WH2 was made grander and more ambitious than WH1 but reached only, what, two thirds of the first games players? That means WH2 is actually earning them less since it cost more to make it yet has found fewer people who play it. Why do you think they have slowed down production of WH2 content and pushing their new historical title so heavily? History is free and the Romance novels have no estate.

  • CanuoveaCanuovea Posts: 13,123Registered Users, Moderators
    Well, this is now a business discussion.

    So I'm moving this.
    -Forum Terms and Conditions: https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/172193/forum-terms-and-conditions#latest
    -Using all caps is the equivalent of shouting. Please don't.
    -The "Spam" flag is not a "disagree" flag. Have a care.
    -...No, no the "Abuse" flag isn't a "disagree" flag either!
    -5.7 Summon a moderator if someone seems to be out of line, or use the report button. Do NOT become another party to misbehaviour
  • Xenos7Xenos7 Posts: 4,943Registered Users

    Xenos7 said:

    Xenos7 said:

    Xenos7 said:

    Xenos7 said:

    Xenos7 said:

    Xenos7 said:

    It's pretty easy to laud the Jabberslythe when the game will probably only include units from WoC, DoC and BM and a pinch of Empire not much more beyond that at all. Wouldn't trade the TWWH rosters for that.

    Some times ago I replayed Titan Quest in its re-release. It's an average hack'n'slash (I actually don't even like the genre that much) but oh boy, it has an *enormous* variety of monsters. Basically everything from Greek, Egyptian and Chinese folklore. Obviously graphics are basic, but we're talking a decade-old game, and Iron Lore had like 40 employees at most. Still the number of unique models far, far surpasses Warhammer.

    So I think CA is honest when they say that something like the Beastmen DLC costs three times as much to make than their previous DLC. But that doesn't necessarily mean that it's a prohibitive cost. It just means that historical DLC are kinda of a rip-off and they didn't want to sacrifice that overly generous profit margin.
    I know Titan Quest. It's 13 years old so actually on par with Med2. Would you like a Jabberslythe that had Med2 level graphics and animations?
    That wasn't my point.
    The point is that if WH had to work with 13 year old technology, they probably could also create more monsters because it would be a lot cheaper. I mean I could probably mould, rig, animate and texture something resembling 13 year old game models with just free programs like **** and Blender.
    While production costs got higher in the industry, the same happened to revenues, due to the increased popularity of the hobby. Following your reasoning, we would expect for AAA games to have a progressively lower RoI with each iteration, but instead it's the opposite.
    Ehm, you are aware of the whole DLC shebang that wasn't so big 13 years ago but really is now? Games are actually undercosted at the moment or do you think WH2 cost just as much as Med2 to create?
    I think it costed much more. I also think it earned much more. CA grew substantially since the time of Med2, and that obviously points to an increase in profit. It's not like companies have the habit of hiring more people when they are losing money. That would also be in line with the rest of the industry. Arena was surely cheaper to make than Skyrim, but which one in the end racked more money for Bethesda? Even without accounting for DLC.
    Point is costs have flown up higher than profits in the meantime too. Why do you think so many indie developers go for retro graphics rather than challenging the graphic fidelity of AAA titles? Videogame costs have not gone up for what, 30 years now? I remember how much I used to pay for stuff like the first Wing Commander when it was new and when adjusted for inflation, games have actually become absurdly cheap without factoring in post-launch content. CA being bigger also means more costs for office space and salaries.
    So, let me understand this. Are you really saying that CA in 2019 is earning less than CA in 2006? Because as of now it has a net income of 16 millions $ per year: http://www.hoovers.com/company-information/cs/company-profile.the_creative_assembly_limited.e4acaa0a49d23612.html?aka_re=1

    If you can find a figure about Medieval 2 making that much money, I'm all hears.
    What did they earn in 2006 and how figures it against their expenses then? Just listing one number by itself is pretty futile. They could have earned less total in 2006 and yet made a better profit margin, but to find that out you also have to put those numbers up.
    Can't find them, obviously, otherwise I would have posted them. But it seems to me quite incredible that Medieval II (released in 2006) could have earned them that kind of money. The gross revenue is 66 millions. That would mean 1.320.000 copies at full 50$ price.

    Besides that, it doesn't make any sense to suppose CA is still expanding while earning progressively less. I don't know of a single company behaving that way: if you're earning less and less common business wisdom dictates downsizing, not expanding. How could it even be sustainable to do otherwise from a financial standpoint?
    It isn't about the gross number of what Med2 earned them in 2006, it's about how large the profit margin for it was. For TWWH the profit margin is automatically smaller because they have to share with the license holders even if it's a larger gross number. The first TWWH was a gamble with a pretty "safe" budget, hence why the game feels so mechanically downgraded and "small" from other TW titles. WH2 was made grander and more ambitious than WH1 but reached only, what, two thirds of the first games players? That means WH2 is actually earning them less since it cost more to make it yet has found fewer people who play it. Why do you think they have slowed down production of WH2 content and pushing their new historical title so heavily? History is free and the Romance novels have no estate.
    I don't think you get the terminology here.

    16 millions is the profit, the net revenue
    66 millions is the gross revenue

    Regardless of production costs, Med 2 would have needed 1.300.000 copies sold at full price to make that money. That would make it the fastest selling TW games ever: but we know that title belongs to WH.

    I don't quite get what you're trying to say in the second part of your post. We all agree that WH content is more expensive than historical content. But you're saying that the company *as a whole* is getting progressively lower profits, while at same time hiring more people and starting more projects. That's frankly ridiculous.
Sign In or Register to comment.