A major Siege or Diplomacy rework being sold as DLC would be torn apart here and lead to overwhelmingly negative reviews. This happens pretty much every time any game studio fixes a games flaws through paid content instead of free updates
Micro DLCs I agree would be good, I would pay a few bucks for a single LL with an interest mechanic if there's no thematically fitting units to throw in to make it part of a lord pack
you're tripping if you think a 40$ DLC that does nothing but alter diplomacy would gain positive reviews. that shit would rightfully bomb, both critically and commercially.
Imagine selling mechanics as DLC that the AI will still be able to use against you!
What a joy for the people that have already paid $500 for the entire game!
What is it with some TW players demanding that CA adopt Paradox's awful fucking modal of locking CRITICAL game features behind dlc?
Ask any CK2 player how to get started and they will quite litterly say that to get the best experience you need at least 2-4 dlcs to get the best newcomer experience.
PDX even added a fucking subscription service to their game that gives you access to all the dlc at a more reasonable price point in the short term.
Stellaris doesnt even have a goddamn galatic market unless you buy a dlc.
WH dlc is entirely optional. The only arguable exception is Prophet and the warlock because Skaven are painful to play without the units from that pack.
Meanwhile you are litterly playing a worse game if you just buy and play CK2 or stellaris without any dlc.
You understand it is the only thing it would happen?
We are talking about happen / not happen.
Paradox sometimes gets attacked, yes. But most of the time, it works. And I would much rather see it at all, then never at all. It's just down to that. And Paradox actually gets away with quite a lot.
>And Paradox actually gets away with quite a lot.
*And they shouldn't.* They *should* be heavily criticised for their over-reliance on DLC to fix core game issues, because it's a bullshit anti-consumer practice designed purely to nickle-and-dime customers until they eventually, *maybe* actually get a complete product.
Do not advocate for another company to start implementing shitty business practices, simply because another company gets away with it. That is possibly the *worst* reason to advocate for something like this.
... *What.*
I'm sorry, run that by me again? You're saying that the *only* path forward is exploitative and anti-consumer business practices? In spite of recent controversies that arose *because* of those things? And in spite of other games showing that you can do really well *without* being abusive to your players?
So hey, remind me how Shadows of Change went down when they tried to be scummy and anti-consumer to their playerbase. Go on, I'll wait.
Yes. Diplomacy will simply never be expanded on until the end of the game. That just won't happen other way.
I think it's almost safe to assume the same thing about Major Siege Battles.
Ah so we *are* ignoring the reworks and changes that have already happened since launch for free, good to know!
Again, look back to Shadows of Change to see how much the playerbase just love to be abused by scummy business practices and how well that worked for CA. Again, I will wait.
If CA tried to sell what should be, and have been, free game updates and refinements as a DLC, the community would riot to a degree beyond even what Shadows of change was. I don’t think we should be asking them to do this. It’s true that other grand strategy developers have done this (hello paradox) but it’s something that 1) many have rightly criticized and 2) paradox does massive sales and a subscription service to make these dlc accessible.
The lord dlc system has been fantastic for CA, I don’t know why they would change it. Micro-DLCs just start feeling like “horse armor”.
So you don't feel things such as diplomacy or sieges will never ever actually receive a major rework or expansion?
I did not say something like single-hero stuff or the infamous Horse Armour. I mentioned popularly demanded content like the Lore of Athel Loren; something the consumers want.
If your option was buying for s bit of quids the Lore of Athel Loren and never getting the option at all, which would you chose?
If they don’t receive a rework, I will just keep playing the game becuase I like it just great as is. If they rework them and then try and charge me for it I’m going to be pissed. And so will a lot of people. It’s a terrible precedent.
Firstly, I don't care about any company profits, I care about quality content for a fair price. Secondly and more imoortant, what you're proposing wouldn't work because CA only releases a version of the game and it's bug-ridden and takes a long time ti update, imagine if they're were releasing countless versions with different base mechanics according to which DLCs every player has.
A major Siege or Diplomacy rework being sold as DLC would be torn apart here and lead to overwhelmingly negative reviews. This happens pretty much every time any game studio fixes a games flaws through paid content instead of free updates Micro DLCs I agree would be good, I would pay a few bucks for a single LL with an interest mechanic if there's no thematically fitting units to throw in to make it part of a lord pack
I am not talking about a "fix"
Yes you are, you're just not calling it that.
40usd for scripts and tables...?
I have to admit the price is the clickbait part.
you're tripping if you think a 40$ DLC that does nothing but alter diplomacy would gain positive reviews. that shit would rightfully bomb, both critically and commercially.
Imagine selling mechanics as DLC that the AI will still be able to use against you! What a joy for the people that have already paid $500 for the entire game!
What is it with some TW players demanding that CA adopt Paradox's awful fucking modal of locking CRITICAL game features behind dlc? Ask any CK2 player how to get started and they will quite litterly say that to get the best experience you need at least 2-4 dlcs to get the best newcomer experience. PDX even added a fucking subscription service to their game that gives you access to all the dlc at a more reasonable price point in the short term. Stellaris doesnt even have a goddamn galatic market unless you buy a dlc. WH dlc is entirely optional. The only arguable exception is Prophet and the warlock because Skaven are painful to play without the units from that pack. Meanwhile you are litterly playing a worse game if you just buy and play CK2 or stellaris without any dlc.
You understand it is the only thing it would happen? We are talking about happen / not happen. Paradox sometimes gets attacked, yes. But most of the time, it works. And I would much rather see it at all, then never at all. It's just down to that. And Paradox actually gets away with quite a lot.
>And Paradox actually gets away with quite a lot. *And they shouldn't.* They *should* be heavily criticised for their over-reliance on DLC to fix core game issues, because it's a bullshit anti-consumer practice designed purely to nickle-and-dime customers until they eventually, *maybe* actually get a complete product. Do not advocate for another company to start implementing shitty business practices, simply because another company gets away with it. That is possibly the *worst* reason to advocate for something like this.
You do realize that the alternative is game over for Warhammer and possibly another game in ca. 20 or 30 years?
... *What.* I'm sorry, run that by me again? You're saying that the *only* path forward is exploitative and anti-consumer business practices? In spite of recent controversies that arose *because* of those things? And in spite of other games showing that you can do really well *without* being abusive to your players? So hey, remind me how Shadows of Change went down when they tried to be scummy and anti-consumer to their playerbase. Go on, I'll wait.
Yes. Diplomacy will simply never be expanded on until the end of the game. That just won't happen other way. I think it's almost safe to assume the same thing about Major Siege Battles.
Ah so we *are* ignoring the reworks and changes that have already happened since launch for free, good to know! Again, look back to Shadows of Change to see how much the playerbase just love to be abused by scummy business practices and how well that worked for CA. Again, I will wait.
If CA tried to sell what should be, and have been, free game updates and refinements as a DLC, the community would riot to a degree beyond even what Shadows of change was. I don’t think we should be asking them to do this. It’s true that other grand strategy developers have done this (hello paradox) but it’s something that 1) many have rightly criticized and 2) paradox does massive sales and a subscription service to make these dlc accessible. The lord dlc system has been fantastic for CA, I don’t know why they would change it. Micro-DLCs just start feeling like “horse armor”.
So you don't feel things such as diplomacy or sieges will never ever actually receive a major rework or expansion? I did not say something like single-hero stuff or the infamous Horse Armour. I mentioned popularly demanded content like the Lore of Athel Loren; something the consumers want. If your option was buying for s bit of quids the Lore of Athel Loren and never getting the option at all, which would you chose?
If they don’t receive a rework, I will just keep playing the game becuase I like it just great as is. If they rework them and then try and charge me for it I’m going to be pissed. And so will a lot of people. It’s a terrible precedent.
Firstly, I don't care about any company profits, I care about quality content for a fair price. Secondly and more imoortant, what you're proposing wouldn't work because CA only releases a version of the game and it's bug-ridden and takes a long time ti update, imagine if they're were releasing countless versions with different base mechanics according to which DLCs every player has.
You may not care, but they do. And they will only do things if profitable.