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

Simple reason why CrossGame LP's are a safe bet for CA

2»

Comments

  • SiWISiWI Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 10,899
    Draxynnic said:

    @SiWI I don't know about you, but RoR aren't the main thing I look at when judging the quality of a DLC. They're nice to have, but generally I'm more concerned with the base units and characters added to (or left out of) the roster, and the mechanics of the new lords (since mechanics updates to the faction as a whole are usually FLC).

    RoRs are probably a fairly minor part of the budget - they're usually a remodelling of an existing unit, with boosted stats and a few special abilities. I suspect that if CA cut down the number of RoRs, it would probably get away with saying "we thought that having more than a dozen RoRs for each race was overkill, so we put the resources into something else instead".

    Apart from RoRs, you'd be looking at about the same amount of content for the lord pack themselves. Most TWW2 races have 2-3 units missing (with at least a few that would require complex animation) and a few options for a generic character. CA could well make these lord packs offer two generic character options each (two lords for the High Elves, a lord and a hero for everyone else), which would also nicely explain where the resources from the RoRs went to. Then you've got a range of units outside of the army books they could draw from if they want more than 2-3 units per race.

    I took RoR as example because they are easier to count then the numbers of untis overall since that is very different from race to race to begin with and doesn't make the comparison as simple.
    And peopel do tend to use them as argument why this or tha tDLC is bad or why this or that race is at a disadvantage.

    lets not forget that playing a race with ROR makes a lot of campaign easier then without, thanks how they work.
    More RoR do improve here a race immensely.

    I mean I only compared core races but the races that got the bit RoR 30th update got I think 6 of them each.
    But that next to 12, low estimate lets remeber, and then the gap gets pretty big.

    Some goes to units and Lords and generic options.

    a 2nd round of Wh2 only races would made a pretty big gap between the races.

    When it comes to FLC coming alongside the DLC - it's been established for a while that CA uses the DLC to fund the accompanying FLC, even if the FLC isn't directly connected to the DLC.

    establish by who and what? this forum assumptions how the game is produce?
    I mean I couldn't prove that this weren't the case but I don't remember CA saying that this is actually how the budget works or not.
    And I dislike basing fairly huge claims base on logic alone.


    Finally, on the scheduling:

    We've got a solid indication from an interview how long P&W took to make. They started shortly after Christmas, and it dropped in mid-April. That gives a turnaround of about 3-4 months, allowing for a little bit of time for post-release fixes before diving into the next DLC.

    Two more of those is... basically the end of the year.


    well I took the "long 6 months" because frankly I could bother to look up release dates but you are right they did said christmas last year which means that 3-4 months it took to make this LP, mind you with substantial changes even outside the DLC to the game.

    Beyond that... no, we don't know when CA is planning to release TWW3. They could be planning to release early in the year, in which case the announcement might come late this year, or they could be planning to release towards the end of the year. Even in the latter case, though, we need to keep in mind that TWW3 will likely have some kind of preorder incentive, and if said preorder incentive is a Norsca-style one, they'll probably want to have it put together, along with any significant TWW2 updates, before they migrate the TWW2 database to TWW3 in order to avoid a repeat of the Norsca debacle. Allowing for a Christmas wind-down period, that could well eat up the time between the release of TWW2's fourth lordpack and the point at which the new content team moves on to TWW3.


    true we don't know when Wh3 is coming, not helped by the fact that the circle is apparently shorten to 6 months instead of a year. So I would assuem that whenever Wh3 is really announce it would take 6 months for the game to come to us but that is speculative.

    As for Norsca style pre order, I would have said yes so but @Grace_CA statements on reddit did kidna exclude that given that "only LPs" come to WH2 now.
    And given the Norsca trouble they maybe don't want to repeat that even thou I though that having a dlc for the previous game was a good idea for an early adopter bonus and would be repeated here.

    Doing a LP as pre order would feel odd to me because they kinda "need" symmetry for balance reasons...
    and doing one of the "balance" as pre order would throw that off in my view.

    Doing another race/campaign pack as pre orer DLC would go against @Grace_CA statement, unless it was meant to exclude that DLC. Thou in that case she could do herself a favor and clear that up.

    Because that would give clarity to Araby yes or not...


    Or they might be able to squeeze in a fifth lordpack and make the preorder incentive a sixth lordpack. *shrug* Nowhere have I said that they couldn't do cross-game lordpacks, just that there's nothing that would force them to do so either.

    "force" not but there are good argument to do it:
    balance between races,
    Empire especially are a bit on the down with only 3 LL's.
    the obvious demand for more WH1 races contend
    and so on.
    Ratling_Guns.gif?t=1554385892
  • DarthKaDarthKa Registered Users Posts: 423
    Draxynnic said:



    When it comes to FLC coming alongside the DLC - it's been established for a while that CA uses the DLC to fund the accompanying FLC, even if the FLC isn't directly connected to the DLC. I don't see that being much different here. FLC for Game 1 races doesn't directly sell the DLC, but it does help keep players engaged in the game, which makes them more likely to buy later installments.

    I don't want to rain on your parade but we have no guaranty that a FLC will be added to each DLC, we can only assume it but this "new" LP are outside the previous developement cycle so it could be very well we don't get FLC.

    I hope it's not the case but...
  • AwesomeLionAwesomeLion Member Registered Users Posts: 1,223
    My thoughts on this is that at the most we will get wh1 lords as FLC. DLC lords will be limited to WH2. They cant list a steam dlc for wh1 under wh2 store page. Pretty sure we wont be getting any cross lord dlc's.
    Total War: Warhammer <3
  • uriakuriak Registered Users Posts: 3,421
    I've heard that maybe 40% of game 2 owners don't have game 1. That's not encouraging. And many people discovered the game with that second opus, whereas other did try the first, didn't like it enough to hop for the second one.

    Remains the issue of people complaining about "exclusive" content not being so exclusive in the future. I want to say f* them, but their existence is the biggest obstacle to new content. Once we get to game 3, forget about about olf faction dlc because yeah... that will become dlc of dlc.

    Honestly I'm kinda miffed, and unless the preorder IS Araby, forget about preordering game 3. A mess without mods that will shurdown old content unless they they say otherwise ? I've played game 2 a lot less than game 1, always waiting for the whole thing to be polished.

  • NopeacejustwarNopeacejustwar Registered Users Posts: 994
    ntrested to see if they give the old world LL a presents on the Vortex map or just Mortal empires.
  • ScreamimgEnvyScreamimgEnvy Registered Users Posts: 355
    uriak said:

    I've heard that maybe 40% of game 2 owners don't have game 1. That's not encouraging. And many people discovered the game with that second opus, whereas other did try the first, didn't like it enough to hop for the second one.

    Remains the issue of people complaining about "exclusive" content not being so exclusive in the future. I want to say f* them, but their existence is the biggest obstacle to new content. Once we get to game 3, forget about about olf faction dlc because yeah... that will become dlc of dlc.

    Honestly I'm kinda miffed, and unless the preorder IS Araby, forget about preordering game 3. A mess without mods that will shurdown old content unless they they say otherwise ? I've played game 2 a lot less than game 1, always waiting for the whole thing to be polished.

    I'm wondering...what if CA would have choose to release just 1 more DLC Campaign Pack, but this Pack was not Araby?
    Everyone here thinks Araby would have been the following Campaign Pack, but after Vampire Coast...I think nothing was confirmed nor certain. CA could just create Fishmen or Slaanesh or DoW or Amazons/Albion as far as we know.
    So, what if CA put DoW/Albion, or whatever, over Araby as the last DLC for WH2?
    People would have start **** storming CA? Review bombing? Boycotting?

    Actually I'm glad that CA chose the more Lord Packs route instead. I just can't stand weeks of "CA dropped **** Albion! Where's Araby?! **** you CA!
    Now we will have other LP's, FLC's, maybe even Cross-Game LP's and the future preorder DLC...instead of 1 Campaign Pack as last WH2 DLC/WH3 preorder.
    Team Monogods - Team Nurgle

  • crazycakemancrazycakeman Registered Users Posts: 197
    I'm assuming the WH1 reworks and/or additional lords and units would be FLC. If you dont own WH1 but bought the DLC that's fine... the WH1 content is free and is no issue to you. However if you want it, its incentive to spend money on buying WH1.
  • DavidtheDukeDavidtheDuke Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,177
    I don't really see the idea of just selling more, say Beastmen LL packs as separate. This way it isn't "DLC for DLC" because they're standalone.
    i6700k @ 4.0 ghz
    EVGA GTX1080ti FTW3 11GB
    1TB SSD w/ Windows 10 Pro 64bit
  • uriakuriak Registered Users Posts: 3,421
    edited April 2019
    I said Araby because it would be hypocritical from me to lobby for them and don't appreciate something tied to them if it did happen. But the rest of my opinion of game 3 is valid : there will be interesting factions, mechanics and new map location. But after that, the integration of game 1-2 content will be susceptible to the same issues as before.

    Yes CA did update old world factions. Not that fast though. I hope for a sizeable GS/Empire update but the moment it still something schedule in the future. A long time has elapsed, since the twilight of game 1....
    Post edited by uriak on
  • NyxilisNyxilis Registered Users Posts: 3,637
    It's folly to say that most who own 2 don't own 1. Both games sold millions, Warhammer 2 sold less than Warhammer 1. Unless you have millions of new players who never played Warhammer one came in and got it first time. There is just no way that is a believable number, it's not believable at 500k, or even 200k in my opinion. Millions of new players didn't come in and just buy Warhammer 2 totally a new. The likely number of people overall to the series is likely a trickle and that goes for nonforum people. So it's not just a tiny slice. Plus, they've said and shown data that says the Mortal Empires map is more popular than the Vortex. Meaning enough players own both to still play it more.

    CA has recently said that the Empire continues to be the most popular races despite being 'game 1 and vanilla'. Meaning, that more people are playing empire than anything from game 2. Meaning that any lord pack that includes the empire is already on sound financial footing. And I for one really don't give a flying hoot if the remaining sliver of people who don't own game 1 are encouraged to buy it utilize cross game DLC. They're are a minority that should not hold back the majority. And game 1 frequently goes on sale for $15 dollars. That point it's a 5 race DLC for the price of a DLC base, has happened multiple times and likely largely narrowed any gap that remained. And CA isn't exactly opposed, there have been devs that popped into threads about that topic that seemed quite receptive. They've also made certain to kill the notion of 'no dlc for dlc' mantra line, saying its' certainly on the table. Mortal Empires also shows CA is clearly happy to make features that encourage you to buy the other game. They've never wavered on that and in fact the talk about them being open to cross faction DLC came well after Mortal Empires. The most popular map.

    And this is the only way we're ever going to see true quality mass improvements for the old world. Big monster units are likely never going to come with FLC. Some like the Greenskins are just missing to much and need to much improvement. The same with the Beastmen and no game 3 is not a guarantee to see them improved, nor is it for the WoC. They're going to likely be stupidly busy doing the DoC no matter what form they come in.

    Warhammer III will likely not be out in 2019, I don't even expect it till around mid next year at the earliest. I expect at least two lord packs before then, maybe more. Especially if we're talking something crazy like a November/December drop for game III. I temper my hype for that though and assume two. Since they've said multiple times now using plurals for the DLC left for game II.

  • MuemmelmonsterMuemmelmonster Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 87
    Nyxilis said:



    And this is the only way we're ever going to see true quality mass improvements for the old world. Big monster units are likely never going to come with FLC. Some like the Greenskins are just missing to much and need to much improvement. The same with the Beastmen and no game 3 is not a guarantee to see them improved, nor is it for the WoC. They're going to likely be stupidly busy doing the DoC no matter what form they come in.

    Quite reasonable approach, I said it in many occasions that we should speak openly about the need of DLCs for old factions, that the gaps between Wh1 and Wh2 races get closed with FLC is unfair to CA, after all they have to earn money and I have nothing against a fair price.

    The Beastmen are the worst faction to play with imo at the moment, the horde mechanic underdeveloped but with potential, lack of unit variety, lack of their Beastmen ambush battle mechanic (it is not vanguard deployment but something much better).

    But of course the Empire is the most reasonable option for an DLC, popularity, missing unit potential, campaign mechanic, battle mechanic (TT version is interesting, but tricky to introduce), they added new regions in the empire area, in my opinion a big clue for the plans of CA. Would be nice to see some legendary heroes too, unlockable for each of the legendary lords, so maybe 3 starting positions, 2 unlockable heroes and 4 new units sounds like a nice package imo.
  • GoatforceGoatforce Registered Users Posts: 4,205
    Nyxilis said:

    It's folly to say that most who own 2 don't own 1. Both games sold millions, Warhammer 2 sold less than Warhammer 1. Unless you have millions of new players who never played Warhammer one came in and got it first time. There is just no way that is a believable number, it's not believable at 500k, or even 200k in my opinion. Millions of new players didn't come in and just buy Warhammer 2 totally a new. The likely number of people overall to the series is likely a trickle and that goes for nonforum people. So it's not just a tiny slice. Plus, they've said and shown data that says the Mortal Empires map is more popular than the Vortex. Meaning enough players own both to still play it more.

    CA has recently said that the Empire continues to be the most popular races despite being 'game 1 and vanilla'. Meaning, that more people are playing empire than anything from game 2. Meaning that any lord pack that includes the empire is already on sound financial footing. And I for one really don't give a flying hoot if the remaining sliver of people who don't own game 1 are encouraged to buy it utilize cross game DLC. They're are a minority that should not hold back the majority. And game 1 frequently goes on sale for $15 dollars. That point it's a 5 race DLC for the price of a DLC base, has happened multiple times and likely largely narrowed any gap that remained. And CA isn't exactly opposed, there have been devs that popped into threads about that topic that seemed quite receptive. They've also made certain to kill the notion of 'no dlc for dlc' mantra line, saying its' certainly on the table. Mortal Empires also shows CA is clearly happy to make features that encourage you to buy the other game. They've never wavered on that and in fact the talk about them being open to cross faction DLC came well after Mortal Empires. The most popular map.

    And this is the only way we're ever going to see true quality mass improvements for the old world. Big monster units are likely never going to come with FLC. Some like the Greenskins are just missing to much and need to much improvement. The same with the Beastmen and no game 3 is not a guarantee to see them improved, nor is it for the WoC. They're going to likely be stupidly busy doing the DoC no matter what form they come in.

    Warhammer III will likely not be out in 2019, I don't even expect it till around mid next year at the earliest. I expect at least two lord packs before then, maybe more. Especially if we're talking something crazy like a November/December drop for game III. I temper my hype for that though and assume two. Since they've said multiple times now using plurals for the DLC left for game II.

    Considering the sale price of Warhammer 1 (£9-10 is what I have seen regularly), CA can also use a Cross-LP to mop up sales for anyone who has 2 but not 1. They could easily arrange a sale on steam (I imagine anyway) for game 1 for a period around the release of the LP, essentially promoting both the LP and Game 1.

    If the game was still pricy or didn't add much value I would call it a slimy move, but it is literally a few pounds more than a LP and unlocks ME along with 5 new races, so I don't see a problem with them doing that at all.
  • chrissher7chrissher7 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,038
    edited April 2019
    Um this is still a problem if done badly as dlc for dlc is anti consumer and sets a terrible precedent. Perhaps more importantly for ca unless done well it will be bad pr most likely.

  • chrissher7chrissher7 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,038
    edited April 2019



    I highly doubt "millions" of people own TWW1 DLC's. And only CA has any idea of what percentage of people own both.

    Anyway the answer to this is simple: if someone doesn't own TWW1 and they buy the crossover then they get access to that faction. You buy Grom's pack you get access to his faction in SP and MP regardless of whether or not you own game 1.

    Yeah, and make some "customers" raging because they payed game 1 rosters 60 euros.
    It's a dark step into the future, and CA should not be so careless in doing it.
    I have no idea why they would rage when by owing the first game they still get the large benefits of being able to to play me and as base lords. Effectively making dlc for dlc is a far darker step to take.

  • AbmongAbmong Registered Users Posts: 1,431



    I highly doubt "millions" of people own TWW1 DLC's. And only CA has any idea of what percentage of people own both.

    Anyway the answer to this is simple: if someone doesn't own TWW1 and they buy the crossover then they get access to that faction. You buy Grom's pack you get access to his faction in SP and MP regardless of whether or not you own game 1.

    Yeah, and make some "customers" raging because they payed game 1 rosters 60 euros.
    It's a dark step into the future, and CA should not be so careless in doing it.
    I have no idea why they would rage when by owing the first game they still get the large benefits of being able to to play me and as base lords. Effectively making dlc for dlc is a far darker step to take.

    It's not as simple as that. Unless Grom's faction contains no units from the original Greenskins or previous LPs which effectively makes them a separate campaign (race) pack. not a LP. Buit if they did contain units from before it would be unfair for the people who supported the game from the beginning, Why should others get those original base-game units for free, when they had to pay for them... Or why should they need to pay for the same units twice? (if you look at it from another angle).

    Game1 is the price of 6 LPs (cheaper if you get it on sale) but gives you way more than that in added content. People just need to suck it up and pay for it if they want access to game1 and its' DLCs.
    Total War: Warhammer IV - Cathay, Ind, Nippon, Khuresh (+ Lost Vampire Bloodlines, Hobgoblin Khanate DLC) :#
  • blacksphemyblacksphemy Registered Users Posts: 389
    Abmong said:



    I highly doubt "millions" of people own TWW1 DLC's. And only CA has any idea of what percentage of people own both.

    Anyway the answer to this is simple: if someone doesn't own TWW1 and they buy the crossover then they get access to that faction. You buy Grom's pack you get access to his faction in SP and MP regardless of whether or not you own game 1.

    Yeah, and make some "customers" raging because they payed game 1 rosters 60 euros.
    It's a dark step into the future, and CA should not be so careless in doing it.
    I have no idea why they would rage when by owing the first game they still get the large benefits of being able to to play me and as base lords. Effectively making dlc for dlc is a far darker step to take.

    It's not as simple as that. Unless Grom's faction contains no units from the original Greenskins or previous LPs which effectively makes them a separate campaign (race) pack. not a LP. Buit if they did contain units from before it would be unfair for the people who supported the game from the beginning, Why should others get those original base-game units for free, when they had to pay for them... Or why should they need to pay for the same units twice? (if you look at it from another angle).

    Game1 is the price of 6 LPs (cheaper if you get it on sale) but gives you way more than that in added content. People just need to suck it up and pay for it if they want access to game1 and its' DLCs.
    I think this whole argument serves as an incentive to make the faction units available to that one lord in vortex campaign. It gives people a taste and soon they want the other 4 lords and ME so they buy game 1 plus game 1 DLC. Remember, they still can't get ME until they get game one so if they buy this new LP and love the race, they are highly incentivized to buy more to round out their experience. You also wouldn't be paying twice as the new LP has it's own unique units like any other LP. Grom couldn't use squigs unless he owned the other dlc as well for example
  • uriakuriak Registered Users Posts: 3,421
    At some point CA will need to make a segment of players unhappy

    either people who yearn for old content updated with DLC and they won't get it
    or people who will see some "exclusivity loss" from new games or DLC giving access to a faction/subfaction locked behind a game.

  • GoatforceGoatforce Registered Users Posts: 4,205
    uriak said:

    At some point CA will need to make a segment of players unhappy

    either people who yearn for old content updated with DLC and they won't get it
    or people who will see some "exclusivity loss" from new games or DLC giving access to a faction/subfaction locked behind a game.

    Think the former is more likely to make people unhappy. I would say most of the people who are passionate about the game will want more content. People who aren't probably won't be massively purturbed by Cross-game DLC, and only a small minority of them will have a problem with it, they will probably just get it if they like the look of it and won't if they don't.
  • DraxynnicDraxynnic Registered Users Posts: 7,900
    SiWI said:

    I took RoR as example because they are easier to count then the numbers of untis overall since that is very different from race to race to begin with and doesn't make the comparison as simple.
    And peopel do tend to use them as argument why this or tha tDLC is bad or why this or that race is at a disadvantage.

    lets not forget that playing a race with ROR makes a lot of campaign easier then without, thanks how they work.
    More RoR do improve here a race immensely.

    I mean I only compared core races but the races that got the bit RoR 30th update got I think 6 of them each.
    But that next to 12, low estimate lets remeber, and then the gap gets pretty big.

    Some goes to units and Lords and generic options.

    a 2nd round of Wh2 only races would made a pretty big gap between the races.

    The times I've seen lack of RoRs as a criticism to a DLC, it's generally been a case of "murder, arson, and jaywalking". Q&C would have been disappointing to a lot of people even if the number of RoRs had been the same as for Game 1 races, the smaller number of RoRs - given that Game 1 core races had ten or so - is adding insult to injury. And it makes sense to compare to the core races unless we're looking at a DLC for DLC scenario, which while not ruled out altogether, is certainly at least controversial.

    I'd also argue that the gap is lessened somewhat in that the Game 2 core races had clear 'this space left for DLC' gaps in their rosters, which the Game 1 core races by and large did not (yes, some of them have gaps now, but those that are unfilled now were clearly not intended to be filled by DLC). A second wave of lordpacks would put the Game 2 core races a bit ahead of the Game 1 core races (and a lot ahead of the poor greenskins), but we don't know what they plan to do for the Empire and Greenskins updates.
    SiWI said:


    When it comes to FLC coming alongside the DLC - it's been established for a while that CA uses the DLC to fund the accompanying FLC, even if the FLC isn't directly connected to the DLC.

    establish by who and what? this forum assumptions how the game is produce?
    I mean I couldn't prove that this weren't the case but I don't remember CA saying that this is actually how the budget works or not.
    And I dislike basing fairly huge claims base on logic alone.
    I do recall such a thing being said. I don't have the time to go raking through forum posts, social media, and interviews which may or may not even be still online for a quote, though.

    You say that you dislike basing fairly huge claims based on logic alone, but that's where this discussion started: You based the claim that CA had to go for cross-game lord packs on your logic. I'm pointing out that no, they don't have to. They might. But they don't have to.
    SiWI said:


    As for Norsca style pre order, I would have said yes so but @Grace_CA statements on reddit did kidna exclude that given that "only LPs" come to WH2 now.
    And given the Norsca trouble they maybe don't want to repeat that even thou I though that having a dlc for the previous game was a good idea for an early adopter bonus and would be repeated here.

    Depends on how they classify the preorder bonus, really. The cause of the Norsca problem could be solved simply by completing whatever preorder incentive they plan in advance, before they migrate the code. Which also means that the preorder might go live as soon as the announcement is made.

    I could see an Empire+Greenskins lordpack as a TWW3 DLC. Norsca, I suspect, was done in part because they felt that TWW2 could also benefit from having the "semi-settled Chaos marauders" fleshed out, and they might decide that TWW3 would benefit from improved Empire and Greenskins and roll it in that way. The incentive would be usable in Mortal Empires, and would obviously also be available in game 3.
    Abmong said:



    I highly doubt "millions" of people own TWW1 DLC's. And only CA has any idea of what percentage of people own both.

    Anyway the answer to this is simple: if someone doesn't own TWW1 and they buy the crossover then they get access to that faction. You buy Grom's pack you get access to his faction in SP and MP regardless of whether or not you own game 1.

    Yeah, and make some "customers" raging because they payed game 1 rosters 60 euros.
    It's a dark step into the future, and CA should not be so careless in doing it.
    I have no idea why they would rage when by owing the first game they still get the large benefits of being able to to play me and as base lords. Effectively making dlc for dlc is a far darker step to take.

    It's not as simple as that. Unless Grom's faction contains no units from the original Greenskins or previous LPs which effectively makes them a separate campaign (race) pack. not a LP. Buit if they did contain units from before it would be unfair for the people who supported the game from the beginning, Why should others get those original base-game units for free, when they had to pay for them... Or why should they need to pay for the same units twice? (if you look at it from another angle).

    Game1 is the price of 6 LPs (cheaper if you get it on sale) but gives you way more than that in added content. People just need to suck it up and pay for it if they want access to game1 and its' DLCs.
    Dude. There's a game I play which went ahead and made the entire base game FTP, while charging for the expansions. What did I get for supporting the game from the beginning? I got to play it for three years before the FTPers.

    Actually, come to think of it, it's not the only one that did that.

    Games naturally drop in price over time. They kind of have to - since their perceived quality when compared to the competition also drops over time. Look at the price on Steam of the original Shogun:Total War (as a bundle with all expansions) compared to more recent offerings, for instance. I don't see the people who bought that full-price complaining that people can now get it for a fraction of what they paid.

    Now, obviously TWW1 isn't quite such an extreme distinction... but I think there may be a point at which CA starts to consider that they'll get more out of just bundling the TWW1 content with TWW3 in order to encourage people to buy the latter than they do for keeping them as separate purchases. Bundles, discounts, and other price reductions over time are a staple of the industry, and the people who buy everything at full price on day 1 pretty much never get very far complaining about how they could have got things cheaper by waiting.
  • AbmongAbmong Registered Users Posts: 1,431
    Draxynnic said:


    Dude. There's a game I play which went ahead and made the entire base game FTP, while charging for the expansions. What did I get for supporting the game from the beginning? I got to play it for three years before the FTPers.

    Actually, come to think of it, it's not the only one that did that.

    Games naturally drop in price over time. They kind of have to - since their perceived quality when compared to the competition also drops over time. Look at the price on Steam of the original Shogun:Total War (as a bundle with all expansions) compared to more recent offerings, for instance. I don't see the people who bought that full-price complaining that people can now get it for a fraction of what they paid.

    Now, obviously TWW1 isn't quite such an extreme distinction... but I think there may be a point at which CA starts to consider that they'll get more out of just bundling the TWW1 content with TWW3 in order to encourage people to buy the latter than they do for keeping them as separate purchases. Bundles, discounts, and other price reductions over time are a staple of the industry, and the people who buy everything at full price on day 1 pretty much never get very far complaining about how they could have got things cheaper by waiting.

    You're not talking about SWTOR by any chance? I did that for it, was a founder and everything. Until I relocate and the ping got really bad so started F2P since it was worth it to sub anymore, but the F2P mechanic was just too frustratingly crippling to be any fun so I quit altogether...

    Even if it wasn't SWTOR, I'm quessing your talking about an MMO. That's a whole different kettle of fish since TWWH isn't an MMO and has completely different financial logistics.

    There's a big principle difference between "Free" and "Cut Price".
    Total War: Warhammer IV - Cathay, Ind, Nippon, Khuresh (+ Lost Vampire Bloodlines, Hobgoblin Khanate DLC) :#
  • DraxynnicDraxynnic Registered Users Posts: 7,900
    edited April 2019
    Guild Wars 2 was the one I was initially thinking of - which didn't have a sub.

    Sticking a bit closer to the genre, Starcraft 2 also did it.

    There is a principle difference between 'free' and 'cut price', but bundles are a thing. Bundling TWW1 content into a lord pack isn't really 'free' - you still have to pay something, after all.
  • CrossilCrossil Registered Users Posts: 7,089
    edited April 2019
    Draxynnic said:

    Guild Wars 2 was the one I was initially thinking of - which didn't have a sub.

    Sticking a bit closer to the genre, Starcraft 2 also did it.

    There is a principle difference between 'free' and 'cut price', but bundles are a thing. Bundling TWW1 content into a lord pack isn't really 'free' - you still have to pay something, after all.

    StarCraft 2 did it because aside from a couple units and a campaign(which is fundamentally just a narrative experience of a given race) the base content was still the same. Game 1 has entirely different factions.

    To give them as DLC would undermine the point of having game 1 as separate "stand-alone" experience.
    UNLEASH THE EVERCHARIOT
  • baronblackbaronblack Registered Users Posts: 3,213
    When actually the Standalone model saved and both damned Warhammer
  • Ares354Ares354 Registered Users Posts: 3,158

    When actually the Standalone model saved and both damned Warhammer

    I go with second options
  • DraxynnicDraxynnic Registered Users Posts: 7,900
    Crossil said:

    Draxynnic said:

    Guild Wars 2 was the one I was initially thinking of - which didn't have a sub.

    Sticking a bit closer to the genre, Starcraft 2 also did it.

    There is a principle difference between 'free' and 'cut price', but bundles are a thing. Bundling TWW1 content into a lord pack isn't really 'free' - you still have to pay something, after all.

    StarCraft 2 did it because aside from a couple units and a campaign(which is fundamentally just a narrative experience of a given race) the base content was still the same. Game 1 has entirely different factions.

    To give them as DLC would undermine the point of having game 1 as separate "stand-alone" experience.
    It's a difference in degree, but not in kind.

    Game 1 has been abandoned as a standalone experience since Game 2 released. Any "cross-game DLC" that is produced is not going to benefit game 1, because CA has decided that trying to continue updating two separate code bases is more effort than its worth. Once Game 3 hits, the same will probably happen to Game 2.

    I could easily see CA deciding when they release Game 3 that it's better for the game as a whole if they bundle in some (or even all) of the game 1 content. It would solve a lot of the apparent potential problems with game 3: relative lack of "good guy" races to draw in new players who want to play as the good guys, the "DLC for DLC" controversy (if Game 1 DLC races are bundled into game 3 directly, they'd no longer be regarded as DLC), keeping Kislev and the Southern Realms within the Game 3 map so they can be the subject of future DLC, and giving the aggressive factions of Game 3 a more satisfying target than simply fighting among themselves.

    And at that point, TWW3 wouldn't be an expansion on TWW1. It'd be a direct sequel, in a way that TWW2 isn't really (since TWW2 focuses on a different part of the world). When a sequel comes out, people who bought the original game generally don't get a refund, however much of the content from the original game is ported directly into the sequel.
Sign In or Register to comment.