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

1.2 next week. Not Monday.

13»

Comments

  • Vanilla_GorillaVanilla_Gorilla Registered Users Posts: 35,552

    Nitros14 said:

    When blood pack.

    It’s on the roadmap. It’s slated to arrive in Update 2.0 in Q3*, presumably August or September.
    Poggy woggy hypers!
    "There's no fun in picking on the weak. If you must, go for the mountain high, the language most foreign, target the strong." - Kenny Florian

    "I like small words" - Winsy C

    Forum Terms & Conditions

    I am The Beast, Son of Guanyin, The one who beasts 25 hours a day, 8 days a week, The Vanilla Gorilla, Conqueror of Mountains, purveyor of wisdom, Official forum historian, Master Tamer of energy, the one they fear to name, Beastradamus, The Teacher, Master Unbiased Pollster, The Avatar of Tuesday, Chief hype Train Conductor, Uwu usurper, pog wog warrior, poggers patroller

  • ArbitraryDwarfArbitraryDwarf Registered Users Posts: 203

    Does it matter? It has nothing in it.

    Main things:
    - AURO-RESOLVE IMPROVEMENTS
    - TECHNOLOGY TREE REWORKS!
    - Regiment of Renown 1
    - single-entity dueling improvements
    - Addressing AI rebuilding Towers too quick
    - Addressing issues with flying units attacking ground units
    - Addressing Ranged units issues
    - AI anti-player bias
    - Further unit-responsiveness improvements

    What do you mean "Nothing in it"?
    Do I really have to spell it out for you?

    Without IE the game is a dead duck, they can fix or add what they please into the mini game until they are blue in the face, it will still be incredibly tedious and boring.
  • BeargodBeargod Registered Users Posts: 263
    CA releasing news posts like they're not secretly planning
    to silently abandon this game in a few months:


    "Be at peace, for that is all I ever want." - Karl Franz.
  • pill1987pill1987 Registered Users Posts: 12
    Beargod said:

    CA releasing news posts like they're not secretly planning
    to silently abandon this game in a few months:

    Personally, I don't believe CA will abandon the game. Not because they love working on it, but because it will destroy whatever remains of their credibility considering they dropped Three Kingdoms. Having two games dropped like that would be outright awful for their reputation.
    Then again, this is CA we're talking about, so it COULD happen. At this point, I wouldn't be surprised.
  • FredenFreden Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 515
    Regiments of Renown before the blood pack feels so wrong. Still, i am grateful the DLC team has taken over development. Keep it up i still have faith even though i dont play this game right now.
  • GoatforceGoatforce Registered Users Posts: 8,012
    pill1987 said:

    Beargod said:

    CA releasing news posts like they're not secretly planning
    to silently abandon this game in a few months:

    Personally, I don't believe CA will abandon the game. Not because they love working on it, but because it will destroy whatever remains of their credibility considering they dropped Three Kingdoms. Having two games dropped like that would be outright awful for their reputation.
    Then again, this is CA we're talking about, so it COULD happen. At this point, I wouldn't be surprised.
    Nah. TW:WH has 5 years of successful content under its belt, it is a proven earner WH3 just needs to be fixed and IE released. The issue with 3K is that they messed up the DLC as far as I understand it (releasing packs about obscure stuff nobody wanted).

    The whole "WH3 is going to be abandoned" thing seems pretty irrational to me. 3K is just not a good comparison as the issue it had was completely different to what WH faces now.
  • GoatforceGoatforce Registered Users Posts: 8,012
    Freden said:

    Regiments of Renown before the blood pack feels so wrong. Still, i am grateful the DLC team has taken over development. Keep it up i still have faith even though i dont play this game right now.

    Yeah I might hop on for the next patch a bit but will mostly be waiting for IE.

    Oh well, hopefully IE will come out in decent enough shape, in which case in a few months we will get IE, a LP, Blood and the WoC rework, which will be awesome, especially if the LP does turn out to be a double bill.
  • TennisgolfbollTennisgolfboll Registered Users Posts: 12,453
    edited May 13
    pill1987 said:

    Beargod said:

    CA releasing news posts like they're not secretly planning
    to silently abandon this game in a few months:

    Personally, I don't believe CA will abandon the game. Not because they love working on it, but because it will destroy whatever remains of their credibility considering they dropped Three Kingdoms. Having two games dropped like that would be outright awful for their reputation.
    Then again, this is CA we're talking about, so it COULD happen. At this point, I wouldn't be surprised.
    I watched steam stats for wh2. After wh3s release month it has had an average of 8k players every month.

    Wh3 had 77k, 18k, 10k, 7k

    What surprised me is that the people who have abandoned wh3 (70k) hasnt gone back to wh2 by atleast a few thousand.

    It seems like the 8k who has been playing wh2 has no interest in going over to wh3 as they are holding steady. And the people who has left wh3 have no interest in wh2.

    CA may have managed to split their current (rather) weak player base for WHTW into two. And the sides flow very little from one side to the other. If we look a year back on wh2 average players were around 20k. So even if we took all wh3 players and wh2 players and remerged them into 1 they still would only number 15-16k. And as ive said those 8k havent moved at all from wh2. But even if half did (cant see it happening) that is 11k in wh3. That is half of what CA had in wh2. And with negative reviews for wh3 new players are going to be low.

    I will never give up hope until CA shuts down shop though.

    But it looks grim. Really grim.
    It needs to be pointed out that what people call "cheese" is just playing the game the way it actually exists not in some fictional way they think it is supposed to work.
  • ValkaarValkaar Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 4,971

    pill1987 said:

    Beargod said:

    CA releasing news posts like they're not secretly planning
    to silently abandon this game in a few months:

    Personally, I don't believe CA will abandon the game. Not because they love working on it, but because it will destroy whatever remains of their credibility considering they dropped Three Kingdoms. Having two games dropped like that would be outright awful for their reputation.
    Then again, this is CA we're talking about, so it COULD happen. At this point, I wouldn't be surprised.
    I watched steam stats for wh2. After wh3s release month it has had an average of 8k players every month.

    Wh3 had 77k, 18k, 10k, 7k

    What surprised me is that the people who have abandoned wh3 (70k) hasnt gone back to wh2 by atleast a few thousand.

    It seems like the 8k who has been playing wh2 has no interest in going over to wh3 as they are holding steady. And the people who has left wh3 have no interest in wh2.

    CA may have managed to split their current (rather) weak player base for WHTW into two. And the sides flow very little from one side to the other. If we look a year back on wh2 average players were around 20k. So even if we took all wh3 players and wh2 players and remerged them into 1 they still would only number 15-16k. And as ive said those 8k havent moved at all from wh2. But even if half did (cant see it happening) that is 11k in wh3. That is half of what CA had in wh2. And with negative reviews for wh3 new players are going to be low.

    I will never give up hope until CA shuts down shop though.

    But it looks grim. Really grim.
    I think you're misunderstanding those numbers.

    During a down period for Game 2, during those gaps between DLC launches, there were around 20k (or less) people playing Game 2. People would create their "dead game" threads, and the numbers would respike every time a DLC finally did launch. Then it would fall back down to that 20k +- ballpark.

    Game 2 never had 70k players just hold steady and play straight for months on end.

    So now, all of a sudden, 70k players aren't holding steady and playing months on end....and this is considered an abnormally bad sign? Nah dude. This is standard.

    And if you add up the Game 2 and Game 3 numbers, it's those same 20k ish players that are always there in between DLC's.

    Yes, they're split between the two games. But there's no logical reason to assume that the split is permanent. The Game 2 players are in Game 2 because their favorite LL's and Races are currently ONLY in that game.

    Once IE launches, especially after it exits beta, I think you'll see most of those Game 2 players transfer over to play their favorite Races with the new mechanics, diplomacy, and maps.

    And once we get a DLC drop, the numbers will spike up again (hopefully). At least for a time.

    ^That last part is when people could MAYBE make their "dead game" threads for a valid reason. If CA's first couple DLC's don't spike up the numbers, yeah, then, and only then, might that signal trouble.

    But until that happens, nothing about these numbers seems out of the ordinary for a "no content" window for this trilogy.
  • PassthechipsPassthechips Registered Users Posts: 573

    pill1987 said:

    Beargod said:

    CA releasing news posts like they're not secretly planning
    to silently abandon this game in a few months:

    Personally, I don't believe CA will abandon the game. Not because they love working on it, but because it will destroy whatever remains of their credibility considering they dropped Three Kingdoms. Having two games dropped like that would be outright awful for their reputation.
    Then again, this is CA we're talking about, so it COULD happen. At this point, I wouldn't be surprised.
    I watched steam stats for wh2. After wh3s release month it has had an average of 8k players every month.

    Wh3 had 77k, 18k, 10k, 7k

    What surprised me is that the people who have abandoned wh3 (70k) hasnt gone back to wh2 by atleast a few thousand.

    It seems like the 8k who has been playing wh2 has no interest in going over to wh3 as they are holding steady. And the people who has left wh3 have no interest in wh2.

    CA may have managed to split their current (rather) weak player base for WHTW into two. And the sides flow very little from one side to the other. If we look a year back on wh2 average players were around 20k. So even if we took all wh3 players and wh2 players and remerged them into 1 they still would only number 15-16k. And as ive said those 8k havent moved at all from wh2. But even if half did (cant see it happening) that is 11k in wh3. That is half of what CA had in wh2. And with negative reviews for wh3 new players are going to be low.

    I will never give up hope until CA shuts down shop though.

    But it looks grim. Really grim.
    I mean WH2 players literally have hundreds of dollars worth of content they’re invested in. Until WH3 incorporates that content they aren’t moving over. There’s also been the jump in historical title numbers like 3K and Rome.

    There are also just a lot of players taking a break from TW games while WH3 gets fixed/IE gets implemented. Realistically, outside of MP, player count doesn’t matter at all. It’s DLC sales, and we’ll have to wait and see on that front.

    It does look like CA is putting all their eggs in the Update 2.0 basket. The content all the way up to that is fixing all the complaints with the game. When Update 2.0 drops we’ll get our first DLC (presumably with 4 champions), the WoC rework, blood pack, and IE. That’s a ton of content! I imagine there will be a huge advertising campaign to align with that and get players buying that new content.
  • TennisgolfbollTennisgolfboll Registered Users Posts: 12,453
    Valkaar said:

    pill1987 said:

    Beargod said:

    CA releasing news posts like they're not secretly planning
    to silently abandon this game in a few months:

    Personally, I don't believe CA will abandon the game. Not because they love working on it, but because it will destroy whatever remains of their credibility considering they dropped Three Kingdoms. Having two games dropped like that would be outright awful for their reputation.
    Then again, this is CA we're talking about, so it COULD happen. At this point, I wouldn't be surprised.
    I watched steam stats for wh2. After wh3s release month it has had an average of 8k players every month.

    Wh3 had 77k, 18k, 10k, 7k

    What surprised me is that the people who have abandoned wh3 (70k) hasnt gone back to wh2 by atleast a few thousand.

    It seems like the 8k who has been playing wh2 has no interest in going over to wh3 as they are holding steady. And the people who has left wh3 have no interest in wh2.

    CA may have managed to split their current (rather) weak player base for WHTW into two. And the sides flow very little from one side to the other. If we look a year back on wh2 average players were around 20k. So even if we took all wh3 players and wh2 players and remerged them into 1 they still would only number 15-16k. And as ive said those 8k havent moved at all from wh2. But even if half did (cant see it happening) that is 11k in wh3. That is half of what CA had in wh2. And with negative reviews for wh3 new players are going to be low.

    I will never give up hope until CA shuts down shop though.

    But it looks grim. Really grim.
    I think you're misunderstanding those numbers.

    During a down period for Game 2, during those gaps between DLC launches, there were around 20k (or less) people playing Game 2. People would create their "dead game" threads, and the numbers would respike every time a DLC finally did launch. Then it would fall back down to that 20k +- ballpark.

    Game 2 never had 70k players just hold steady and play straight for months on end.

    So now, all of a sudden, 70k players aren't holding steady and playing months on end....and this is considered an abnormally bad sign? Nah dude. This is standard.

    And if you add up the Game 2 and Game 3 numbers, it's those same 20k ish players that are always there in between DLC's.

    Yes, they're split between the two games. But there's no logical reason to assume that the split is permanent. The Game 2 players are in Game 2 because their favorite LL's and Races are currently ONLY in that game.

    Once IE launches, especially after it exits beta, I think you'll see most of those Game 2 players transfer over to play their favorite Races with the new mechanics, diplomacy, and maps.

    And once we get a DLC drop, the numbers will spike up again (hopefully). At least for a time.

    ^That last part is when people could MAYBE make their "dead game" threads for a valid reason. If CA's first couple DLC's don't spike up the numbers, yeah, then, and only then, might that signal trouble.

    But until that happens, nothing about these numbers seems out of the ordinary for a "no content" window for this trilogy.
    These numbers arent good. But perhaps talking about them isnt good either.

    I will be here hoping CA gets wh3 into great shape. If it takes a full year i will still be here. Or two. Three. Four. Five....
    It needs to be pointed out that what people call "cheese" is just playing the game the way it actually exists not in some fictional way they think it is supposed to work.
  • aMint1aMint1 Registered Users Posts: 1,202
    Valkaar said:

    pill1987 said:

    Beargod said:

    CA releasing news posts like they're not secretly planning
    to silently abandon this game in a few months:

    Personally, I don't believe CA will abandon the game. Not because they love working on it, but because it will destroy whatever remains of their credibility considering they dropped Three Kingdoms. Having two games dropped like that would be outright awful for their reputation.
    Then again, this is CA we're talking about, so it COULD happen. At this point, I wouldn't be surprised.
    I watched steam stats for wh2. After wh3s release month it has had an average of 8k players every month.

    Wh3 had 77k, 18k, 10k, 7k

    What surprised me is that the people who have abandoned wh3 (70k) hasnt gone back to wh2 by atleast a few thousand.

    It seems like the 8k who has been playing wh2 has no interest in going over to wh3 as they are holding steady. And the people who has left wh3 have no interest in wh2.

    CA may have managed to split their current (rather) weak player base for WHTW into two. And the sides flow very little from one side to the other. If we look a year back on wh2 average players were around 20k. So even if we took all wh3 players and wh2 players and remerged them into 1 they still would only number 15-16k. And as ive said those 8k havent moved at all from wh2. But even if half did (cant see it happening) that is 11k in wh3. That is half of what CA had in wh2. And with negative reviews for wh3 new players are going to be low.

    I will never give up hope until CA shuts down shop though.

    But it looks grim. Really grim.
    I think you're misunderstanding those numbers.

    During a down period for Game 2, during those gaps between DLC launches, there were around 20k (or less) people playing Game 2. People would create their "dead game" threads, and the numbers would respike every time a DLC finally did launch. Then it would fall back down to that 20k +- ballpark.

    Game 2 never had 70k players just hold steady and play straight for months on end.

    So now, all of a sudden, 70k players aren't holding steady and playing months on end....and this is considered an abnormally bad sign? Nah dude. This is standard.

    And if you add up the Game 2 and Game 3 numbers, it's those same 20k ish players that are always there in between DLC's.

    Yes, they're split between the two games. But there's no logical reason to assume that the split is permanent. The Game 2 players are in Game 2 because their favorite LL's and Races are currently ONLY in that game.

    Once IE launches, especially after it exits beta, I think you'll see most of those Game 2 players transfer over to play their favorite Races with the new mechanics, diplomacy, and maps.

    And once we get a DLC drop, the numbers will spike up again (hopefully). At least for a time.

    ^That last part is when people could MAYBE make their "dead game" threads for a valid reason. If CA's first couple DLC's don't spike up the numbers, yeah, then, and only then, might that signal trouble.

    But until that happens, nothing about these numbers seems out of the ordinary for a "no content" window for this trilogy.
    I think you are misinterpreting what people are saying.

    You have to go back to July 2019 to find only 20k people playing wh2. From then up until wh3, the 'dead' periods were closer to 30k. I also don't remember any 'wh2 is dead' posts here or on Reddit.

    No one is saying that wh3 should have retained 70k. Literally no one. Releasing wh3 and then 3months later having less players playing tww2+3 combined than just wh2 after 4 years of its life (or just a few months ago) is clearly a bad sign (new game and content = less people playing).

    Obviously we're all hoping that people come back with IE and DLCs but I don't think it's a given that it will recover back to, say, game2 year4 numbers.

    --

    My own speculation is that fatigue is playing a significant role as well. We've been playing this series for six years, and whilst it's evolved and great content has been added, the loop is largely the same. People are going to get bored after 1k, 2k, etc hours regardless of what comes out. I already know that there's zero chance I'll play wh3 as much as wh2 even if it becomes a masterpiece. The novelty is long gone, I know the game inside out, the challenge doesn't really exist. I would presume there are others feeling that too.
  • ValkaarValkaar Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 4,971
    aMint1 said:

    Valkaar said:

    pill1987 said:

    Beargod said:

    CA releasing news posts like they're not secretly planning
    to silently abandon this game in a few months:

    Personally, I don't believe CA will abandon the game. Not because they love working on it, but because it will destroy whatever remains of their credibility considering they dropped Three Kingdoms. Having two games dropped like that would be outright awful for their reputation.
    Then again, this is CA we're talking about, so it COULD happen. At this point, I wouldn't be surprised.
    I watched steam stats for wh2. After wh3s release month it has had an average of 8k players every month.

    Wh3 had 77k, 18k, 10k, 7k

    What surprised me is that the people who have abandoned wh3 (70k) hasnt gone back to wh2 by atleast a few thousand.

    It seems like the 8k who has been playing wh2 has no interest in going over to wh3 as they are holding steady. And the people who has left wh3 have no interest in wh2.

    CA may have managed to split their current (rather) weak player base for WHTW into two. And the sides flow very little from one side to the other. If we look a year back on wh2 average players were around 20k. So even if we took all wh3 players and wh2 players and remerged them into 1 they still would only number 15-16k. And as ive said those 8k havent moved at all from wh2. But even if half did (cant see it happening) that is 11k in wh3. That is half of what CA had in wh2. And with negative reviews for wh3 new players are going to be low.

    I will never give up hope until CA shuts down shop though.

    But it looks grim. Really grim.
    I think you're misunderstanding those numbers.

    During a down period for Game 2, during those gaps between DLC launches, there were around 20k (or less) people playing Game 2. People would create their "dead game" threads, and the numbers would respike every time a DLC finally did launch. Then it would fall back down to that 20k +- ballpark.

    Game 2 never had 70k players just hold steady and play straight for months on end.

    So now, all of a sudden, 70k players aren't holding steady and playing months on end....and this is considered an abnormally bad sign? Nah dude. This is standard.

    And if you add up the Game 2 and Game 3 numbers, it's those same 20k ish players that are always there in between DLC's.

    Yes, they're split between the two games. But there's no logical reason to assume that the split is permanent. The Game 2 players are in Game 2 because their favorite LL's and Races are currently ONLY in that game.

    Once IE launches, especially after it exits beta, I think you'll see most of those Game 2 players transfer over to play their favorite Races with the new mechanics, diplomacy, and maps.

    And once we get a DLC drop, the numbers will spike up again (hopefully). At least for a time.

    ^That last part is when people could MAYBE make their "dead game" threads for a valid reason. If CA's first couple DLC's don't spike up the numbers, yeah, then, and only then, might that signal trouble.

    But until that happens, nothing about these numbers seems out of the ordinary for a "no content" window for this trilogy.
    I think you are misinterpreting what people are saying.

    You have to go back to July 2019 to find only 20k people playing wh2. From then up until wh3, the 'dead' periods were closer to 30k. I also don't remember any 'wh2 is dead' posts here or on Reddit.

    No one is saying that wh3 should have retained 70k. Literally no one. Releasing wh3 and then 3months later having less players playing tww2+3 combined than just wh2 after 4 years of its life (or just a few months ago) is clearly a bad sign (new game and content = less people playing).

    Obviously we're all hoping that people come back with IE and DLCs but I don't think it's a given that it will recover back to, say, game2 year4 numbers.

    --

    My own speculation is that fatigue is playing a significant role as well. We've been playing this series for six years, and whilst it's evolved and great content has been added, the loop is largely the same. People are going to get bored after 1k, 2k, etc hours regardless of what comes out. I already know that there's zero chance I'll play wh3 as much as wh2 even if it becomes a masterpiece. The novelty is long gone, I know the game inside out, the challenge doesn't really exist. I would presume there are others feeling that too.
    I don't really agree on the argumentation too much, as I HAVE seen people making a big deal that numbers dipped below 70k and I remember those "Game 2 is dead/dying, CA MUST DO X" threads. I know not EVERYONE has that kind of outlook, but some people do, especially some of the vocal atmosphere around here recently.

    What my main original point was, people are prematurely trying to make a big deal out of these active player counts when they just don't matter. They really don't. Player retention isn't measured in active players. It always dipped down severely without content drops. It's the content drops themselves that matter. Maybe the content drops will sell well. Maybe they won't. But current player numbers have not previously given even a remotely close picture of what the content sales are going to be. The content sales always wind up being their own dramatically different number. And until we have that number, we don't really know what the current 'health' or longevity of this whole thing is.

    I get that some people are unhappy. And some people have their wishlists. But the people trying to tie their wishlist to player counts and make fatalistic comments about how: "If CA doesn't cater to my wishlist immediately, these numbers indicate the game is about to die"....are just....tiresome....and they're falsely correlating information to try and add an inflated sense of urgency to their demands. I'm not saying that you are one of those people. I'm saying that those people exist, and that's really where my argumentation is directed. But I might just leave that on a "we agree to disagree" note if you don't feel people truly harbor those kinds of perspectives.

    .
    .
    .


    What I mostly actually agree on is the fatigue point. I myself know Game 2 contained my favorite Races, units, and maximum hype. And that's not due to Game 3's messy launch. Game 3 could have launched perfectly, and I know I wouldn't have been as excited or played it as much because I'm just not as interested in the content on offer. And what I am MOST interested moving forward is a chance for me to play my old favorite Races on the new map with the new features. I am NOT most interested in DLC or Chaos Dwarfs or anything else like that. I agree that I think many veterans feel similarly and for veterans I think franchise fatigue will play a role.

    However,

    Even if I don't get 2k or 1k hours out of Game 3, even 100 or 200 hours is still "money well spent". 30+ hours per DLC is also a bargain at $10 a pop. I personally don't see myself missing out on any Kislev or Cathay DLC, fatigued or otherwise, because it's still a good value in terms of content per hours.

    So I guess it depends on what your benchmarks are. If you want Game to replicate a Game 2 experience and reinvigorate how you previously felt about this series, yeah, Game 3 will be a disappointment. If you're looking for Game 3 to give you sufficient 'value for your strategy gaming dollar', then it still holds up and is worth acquiring the content for imo. And if enough veterans share the latter outlook instead of getting too hung up on the former, then I still see them supporting content development for this Game in the long term.

    As a side note, those launch figures were astronomical. That wasn't just series veterans supporting this launch. It clearly cracked into a new audience as well. We'll have to see how much of that new audience is still interested in DLC, but it may very well be that this series isn't actually sustained by the fatigued veterans anymore, but by a newer audience that still see the novelty in this whole experience.

    Or maybe the newer fans were put off by the rough launch and can't be enticed back. We don't know at this point. We will know later after the first couple DLC are out.
  • T_MACCABBEET_MACCABBEE Registered Users Posts: 696
    This cope about how player numbers don't matter sure reminds me of how 3K's own defense force acted.
    "Oh CA won't abandon 3K, just look at Rome 2! CA supported that game for near a decade!"
    Mind you WH3 jas been dropping to 3k players now. WH2 has never ever dropped that low in its entire existence even before ME launched.
    Well, we'll see if WH3 gets a Warden and Paunch tier revival where the player numbers manage to reach its peak player counts on release. Although you can say that was mostly thanks to Mandalore's shilling of the game back then.
  • ValkaarValkaar Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 4,971

    This cope about how player numbers don't matter sure reminds me of how 3K's own defense force acted.
    "Oh CA won't abandon 3K, just look at Rome 2! CA supported that game for near a decade!"
    Mind you WH3 jas been dropping to 3k players now. WH2 has never ever dropped that low in its entire existence even before ME launched.
    Well, we'll see if WH3 gets a Warden and Paunch tier revival where the player numbers manage to reach its peak player counts on release. Although you can say that was mostly thanks to Mandalore's shilling of the game back then.

    3K player counts didn't matter. 3K's poor DLC sales did. They are two separate issues.

    Additionally, people just looking to doomsay for lulz keep talking about Game 3 numbers as if that number is a standalone, by itself, number in a vacuum.

    It's not. The Game 2 and Game 3 numbers pooled together would be the far more realistic number to evaluate as that will likely be the total number once IE is up and running.

    And the "cope" isn't that 'Game 3 will be fine'. Game 3 may very well not be fine. Game 3 might be in trouble.

    The point is, we cannot say Game 3 is or is not in trouble until we see how the first DLC or two sell. That's the actual number that will determine future development budgets and how quickly CA decides to shifts gears to future projects.

    ^The number of people playing now do NOT affect the budget that CA currently has for future development. 70,000 people could log in this weekend. 2 people could log in this weekend. The production budget for future content will remain identical in either scenario.

    What WILL change/determine CA's future development decisions is the DLC sales.

    And nobody here is arguing that future DLC sales are guaranteed to be solid. What I am arguing is, that's the actually relevant numbers/pieces of information that we're missing before we can say "#deadgame" with any meaningful weight behind the statement that isn't just chicken little hyperbole.
  • T_MACCABBEET_MACCABBEE Registered Users Posts: 696
    Valkaar said:

    This cope about how player numbers don't matter sure reminds me of how 3K's own defense force acted.
    "Oh CA won't abandon 3K, just look at Rome 2! CA supported that game for near a decade!"
    Mind you WH3 jas been dropping to 3k players now. WH2 has never ever dropped that low in its entire existence even before ME launched.
    Well, we'll see if WH3 gets a Warden and Paunch tier revival where the player numbers manage to reach its peak player counts on release. Although you can say that was mostly thanks to Mandalore's shilling of the game back then.

    3K player counts didn't matter. 3K's poor DLC sales did. They are two separate issues.

    Additionally, people just looking to doomsay for lulz keep talking about Game 3 numbers as if that number is a standalone, by itself, number in a vacuum.

    It's not. The Game 2 and Game 3 numbers pooled together would be the far more realistic number to evaluate as that will likely be the total number once IE is up and running.

    And the "cope" isn't that 'Game 3 will be fine'. Game 3 may very well not be fine. Game 3 might be in trouble.

    The point is, we cannot say Game 3 is or is not in trouble until we see how the first DLC or two sell. That's the actual number that will determine future development budgets and how quickly CA decides to shifts gears to future projects.

    ^The number of people playing now do NOT affect the budget that CA currently has for future development. 70,000 people could log in this weekend. 2 people could log in this weekend. The production budget for future content will remain identical in either scenario.

    What WILL change/determine CA's future development decisions is the DLC sales.

    And nobody here is arguing that future DLC sales are guaranteed to be solid. What I am arguing is, that's the actually relevant numbers/pieces of information that we're missing before we can say "#deadgame" with any meaningful weight behind the statement that isn't just chicken little hyperbole.
    You cannot have good DLC sales if you have low player counts. That's the bottom line.
    3K back in 2019/2020 was routinely getting beat by Rome 2 of all games in terms of player counts. WH2 when it was still a stand alone, just like what "people" are arguing here in favor of WH3 currently, didn't as much as drop below 10k players before ME even came out months later, despite WH1 having more content at the time.
    We're discussing trends currently and it cannot be ignored that WH3 has been bleeding players that also affected WH2.
    Before WH3 came out, even on dead months with no content, WH2 had no problems getting 20-30k players daily.
    Look at both games now.

    WH3 isn't a live service game or gacha where player counts do in fact matter less because what contributes more for the game's bottom line is the amount of money that whales (aka minority big time spenders) spend on the game.
  • Darksteel83Darksteel83 Registered Users Posts: 169

    Valkaar said:

    This cope about how player numbers don't matter sure reminds me of how 3K's own defense force acted.
    "Oh CA won't abandon 3K, just look at Rome 2! CA supported that game for near a decade!"
    Mind you WH3 jas been dropping to 3k players now. WH2 has never ever dropped that low in its entire existence even before ME launched.
    Well, we'll see if WH3 gets a Warden and Paunch tier revival where the player numbers manage to reach its peak player counts on release. Although you can say that was mostly thanks to Mandalore's shilling of the game back then.

    3K player counts didn't matter. 3K's poor DLC sales did. They are two separate issues.

    Additionally, people just looking to doomsay for lulz keep talking about Game 3 numbers as if that number is a standalone, by itself, number in a vacuum.

    It's not. The Game 2 and Game 3 numbers pooled together would be the far more realistic number to evaluate as that will likely be the total number once IE is up and running.

    And the "cope" isn't that 'Game 3 will be fine'. Game 3 may very well not be fine. Game 3 might be in trouble.

    The point is, we cannot say Game 3 is or is not in trouble until we see how the first DLC or two sell. That's the actual number that will determine future development budgets and how quickly CA decides to shifts gears to future projects.

    ^The number of people playing now do NOT affect the budget that CA currently has for future development. 70,000 people could log in this weekend. 2 people could log in this weekend. The production budget for future content will remain identical in either scenario.

    What WILL change/determine CA's future development decisions is the DLC sales.

    And nobody here is arguing that future DLC sales are guaranteed to be solid. What I am arguing is, that's the actually relevant numbers/pieces of information that we're missing before we can say "#deadgame" with any meaningful weight behind the statement that isn't just chicken little hyperbole.
    You cannot have good DLC sales if you have low player counts. That's the bottom line.
    3K back in 2019/2020 was routinely getting beat by Rome 2 of all games in terms of player counts. WH2 when it was still a stand alone, just like what "people" are arguing here in favor of WH3 currently, didn't as much as drop below 10k players before ME even came out months later, despite WH1 having more content at the time.
    We're discussing trends currently and it cannot be ignored that WH3 has been bleeding players that also affected WH2.
    Before WH3 came out, even on dead months with no content, WH2 had no problems getting 20-30k players daily.
    Look at both games now.

    WH3 isn't a live service game or gacha where player counts do in fact matter less because what contributes more for the game's bottom line is the amount of money that whales (aka minority big time spenders) spend on the game.
    ME was not delayed months. So players had way more, soon in WH2. Unless you only wanted to play Norsca.


    I don't Whales effect Total War games a lot. As the most expense thing you can do is buy the game and all the DLC full price.

    It is not a mobile game where most players spend no money and only watch adds some spend some money and only a small group spends a large amount off money.
  • TennisgolfbollTennisgolfboll Registered Users Posts: 12,453
    aMint1 said:

    Valkaar said:

    pill1987 said:

    Beargod said:

    CA releasing news posts like they're not secretly planning
    to silently abandon this game in a few months:

    Personally, I don't believe CA will abandon the game. Not because they love working on it, but because it will destroy whatever remains of their credibility considering they dropped Three Kingdoms. Having two games dropped like that would be outright awful for their reputation.
    Then again, this is CA we're talking about, so it COULD happen. At this point, I wouldn't be surprised.
    I watched steam stats for wh2. After wh3s release month it has had an average of 8k players every month.

    Wh3 had 77k, 18k, 10k, 7k

    What surprised me is that the people who have abandoned wh3 (70k) hasnt gone back to wh2 by atleast a few thousand.

    It seems like the 8k who has been playing wh2 has no interest in going over to wh3 as they are holding steady. And the people who has left wh3 have no interest in wh2.

    CA may have managed to split their current (rather) weak player base for WHTW into two. And the sides flow very little from one side to the other. If we look a year back on wh2 average players were around 20k. So even if we took all wh3 players and wh2 players and remerged them into 1 they still would only number 15-16k. And as ive said those 8k havent moved at all from wh2. But even if half did (cant see it happening) that is 11k in wh3. That is half of what CA had in wh2. And with negative reviews for wh3 new players are going to be low.

    I will never give up hope until CA shuts down shop though.

    But it looks grim. Really grim.
    I think you're misunderstanding those numbers.

    During a down period for Game 2, during those gaps between DLC launches, there were around 20k (or less) people playing Game 2. People would create their "dead game" threads, and the numbers would respike every time a DLC finally did launch. Then it would fall back down to that 20k +- ballpark.

    Game 2 never had 70k players just hold steady and play straight for months on end.

    So now, all of a sudden, 70k players aren't holding steady and playing months on end....and this is considered an abnormally bad sign? Nah dude. This is standard.

    And if you add up the Game 2 and Game 3 numbers, it's those same 20k ish players that are always there in between DLC's.

    Yes, they're split between the two games. But there's no logical reason to assume that the split is permanent. The Game 2 players are in Game 2 because their favorite LL's and Races are currently ONLY in that game.

    Once IE launches, especially after it exits beta, I think you'll see most of those Game 2 players transfer over to play their favorite Races with the new mechanics, diplomacy, and maps.

    And once we get a DLC drop, the numbers will spike up again (hopefully). At least for a time.

    ^That last part is when people could MAYBE make their "dead game" threads for a valid reason. If CA's first couple DLC's don't spike up the numbers, yeah, then, and only then, might that signal trouble.

    But until that happens, nothing about these numbers seems out of the ordinary for a "no content" window for this trilogy.
    I think you are misinterpreting what people are saying.

    You have to go back to July 2019 to find only 20k people playing wh2. From then up until wh3, the 'dead' periods were closer to 30k. I also don't remember any 'wh2 is dead' posts here or on Reddit.

    No one is saying that wh3 should have retained 70k. Literally no one. Releasing wh3 and then 3months later having less players playing tww2+3 combined than just wh2 after 4 years of its life (or just a few months ago) is clearly a bad sign (new game and content = less people playing).

    Obviously we're all hoping that people come back with IE and DLCs but I don't think it's a given that it will recover back to, say, game2 year4 numbers.

    --

    My own speculation is that fatigue is playing a significant role as well. We've been playing this series for six years, and whilst it's evolved and great content has been added, the loop is largely the same. People are going to get bored after 1k, 2k, etc hours regardless of what comes out. I already know that there's zero chance I'll play wh3 as much as wh2 even if it becomes a masterpiece. The novelty is long gone, I know the game inside out, the challenge doesn't really exist. I would presume there are others feeling that too.
    Yeah pretty much but i didnt bother to explain it to those who didnt get it the first time.
    It needs to be pointed out that what people call "cheese" is just playing the game the way it actually exists not in some fictional way they think it is supposed to work.
  • Pappa_FraPappa_Fra Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 288


    You cannot have good DLC sales if you have low player counts. That's the bottom line.

    I'm not playing either game at the moment but I want to be playing IE and will buy more DLC if it's good. I know most of my friends that play are the same. Don't want to go back to 2 but there isn't enough in 3 to make it worth playing. The question is how many people are the same? As mentioned above the first DLC sales after IE drops will tell us more. If IE is a mess then I would start to worry even if they label it as a beta.
  • nord123456nord123456 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 284
    1.1 improved the game a lot so I'm definately looking forward to 1.2. I'm pretty excited.
  • IamNotArobotIamNotArobot Registered Users Posts: 5,395
    Maybe wait for a sale? You know people don’t buy full price, specially if they havent 100% finished WH2.

    Those WH2 current players will be automatically added to the WH3 pool of players once IE and more DLCs get released.

    Also the newcomers , there will be some new players that will buy the game with a new dlc (like hiw prophet brought us like an extra 10% of players or Grom who basically was pure growth for CA.

    CA broke me and made me use mods, that’s why I’m still playing. I don’t think I’m the only one.

    Keep calm, we should focus on fixing the review score on Steam, that can really harm CA plans for dlc races or even make them abandon the game. This doesnt help anybody!
    *Justice, cats and CONFEDERATION ENABLED for the Tomb Kings and Vampire Coast! feat mummies and Apophas.
    *Exclusive DLCs for Tomb Kings, Vampire Coast, BM, CW and WE! #DLCsAreRacesToo
    *Remaster all WH1 and WH2 faction icons for WH3!
    *Ogre Kingdoms core race or death!
    *Bring back settlement conquering artworks!
    *Gnoblar Carpet for Greesus
    *Improve UI


  • T_MACCABBEET_MACCABBEE Registered Users Posts: 696
    Rome 2 has officially beaten WH3


    Cue


    Now it's a waiting list until Med 2 or Empire can beat it.
  • Vanilla_GorillaVanilla_Gorilla Registered Users Posts: 35,552

    Rome 2 has officially beaten WH3


    Cue


    Now it's a waiting list until Med 2 or Empire can beat it.

    Oh no.

    Anyway.
    "There's no fun in picking on the weak. If you must, go for the mountain high, the language most foreign, target the strong." - Kenny Florian

    "I like small words" - Winsy C

    Forum Terms & Conditions

    I am The Beast, Son of Guanyin, The one who beasts 25 hours a day, 8 days a week, The Vanilla Gorilla, Conqueror of Mountains, purveyor of wisdom, Official forum historian, Master Tamer of energy, the one they fear to name, Beastradamus, The Teacher, Master Unbiased Pollster, The Avatar of Tuesday, Chief hype Train Conductor, Uwu usurper, pog wog warrior, poggers patroller

  • dge1dge1 Moderator Arkansas, USARegistered Users, Moderators, Knights Posts: 23,318
    Since this is now a perception of business type of discussion it is moved to Chat.
    "The two most common things in the universe are Hydrogen and Stupidity." - Harlan Ellison
    "The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously." - Hubert H. Humphrey
    "Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin/Mark Twain
    “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”–George Santayana, The Life of Reason, 1905.

  • T_MACCABBEET_MACCABBEE Registered Users Posts: 696

    Valkaar said:

    This cope about how player numbers don't matter sure reminds me of how 3K's own defense force acted.
    "Oh CA won't abandon 3K, just look at Rome 2! CA supported that game for near a decade!"
    Mind you WH3 jas been dropping to 3k players now. WH2 has never ever dropped that low in its entire existence even before ME launched.
    Well, we'll see if WH3 gets a Warden and Paunch tier revival where the player numbers manage to reach its peak player counts on release. Although you can say that was mostly thanks to Mandalore's shilling of the game back then.

    3K player counts didn't matter. 3K's poor DLC sales did. They are two separate issues.

    Additionally, people just looking to doomsay for lulz keep talking about Game 3 numbers as if that number is a standalone, by itself, number in a vacuum.

    It's not. The Game 2 and Game 3 numbers pooled together would be the far more realistic number to evaluate as that will likely be the total number once IE is up and running.

    And the "cope" isn't that 'Game 3 will be fine'. Game 3 may very well not be fine. Game 3 might be in trouble.

    The point is, we cannot say Game 3 is or is not in trouble until we see how the first DLC or two sell. That's the actual number that will determine future development budgets and how quickly CA decides to shifts gears to future projects.

    ^The number of people playing now do NOT affect the budget that CA currently has for future development. 70,000 people could log in this weekend. 2 people could log in this weekend. The production budget for future content will remain identical in either scenario.

    What WILL change/determine CA's future development decisions is the DLC sales.

    And nobody here is arguing that future DLC sales are guaranteed to be solid. What I am arguing is, that's the actually relevant numbers/pieces of information that we're missing before we can say "#deadgame" with any meaningful weight behind the statement that isn't just chicken little hyperbole.
    You cannot have good DLC sales if you have low player counts. That's the bottom line.
    3K back in 2019/2020 was routinely getting beat by Rome 2 of all games in terms of player counts. WH2 when it was still a stand alone, just like what "people" are arguing here in favor of WH3 currently, didn't as much as drop below 10k players before ME even came out months later, despite WH1 having more content at the time.
    We're discussing trends currently and it cannot be ignored that WH3 has been bleeding players that also affected WH2.
    Before WH3 came out, even on dead months with no content, WH2 had no problems getting 20-30k players daily.
    Look at both games now.

    WH3 isn't a live service game or gacha where player counts do in fact matter less because what contributes more for the game's bottom line is the amount of money that whales (aka minority big time spenders) spend on the game.
    ME was not delayed months. So players had way more, soon in WH2. Unless you only wanted to play Norsca.


    I don't Whales effect Total War games a lot. As the most expense thing you can do is buy the game and all the DLC full price.

    It is not a mobile game where most players spend no money and only watch adds some spend some money and only a small group spends a large amount off money.
    That's my point.
    In a long running game like TW, shelf life is extremely dependent on how many people continue to play the game and buy dlcs, which is why WH2 was so successful. Despite being mostly a single player game, it was competing with mmos like Warframe or Path of Exile by having solid 20k+ players on average per month and shooting up to 30k+ whenever dlc hit.
    Meanwhile, gachas can have only 5k+ players but can still survive being in a zombie state if the few hundred whales can dump thousands of dollars on the game every week.
    TW has no such luxury. It either gains players through constant updates or become like every other single player game where people just move on to the next FOTM game, and its very obvious here that a lot of people want to play WH3 for months on end instead of treating it like a FOTM like Elden Ring.
Sign In or Register to comment.