Printable View
No, not at all, it will be 2.0. It should include a fix for the loadgame seige bug, flashier graphics, and some awesome new units including those Gladiator Urban Spartan Screeching Elephant Chariot Archer Cohorts with their Headhurling Wardogs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Turbo
mfberg
The subject of the expansion is good news. I just hope it is a full sized campaign like the Imperial RTW one and not some quick job like Mongol invasion. Covering Rome's fall on a map and time frame comparable to RTW would be less an expansion and more a whole new game. Hence I may be being over-optimistic but fingers crossed!
: :charge: :charge: :charge: :charge: :charge: :charge: :charge: :charge: :charge: :charge: :duel: :duel: :duel: :duel: :duel: :balloon2: :balloon2: :balloon2: :balloon2: :balloon2: :balloon2: :balloon2:
Hope it'll be longer then VI-MTW and have less bugs then RTW.
But it is cool ~:cool: to here they are working on it
split the army/navy squablle out - see link below
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=46218
You kidding? VI was almost a game in of itself! The new campaign, new units, factions, etc, were everything I wanted in an expansion pack. It helped matters that it had better support for moddersQuote:
Originally Posted by IliaDN
:happyg:
I can't recall ever seeing an add-on priced as high as $35. I wonder if CA has the one patch deal negotiated with Activision for this add-on. You know CA tried to bail out of patching the VI add-on, but the "all kings die at 56" issue caused them to make an unfunded patch for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
See, that's baloney! All patches are funded by the consumer. It is an accepted part of the project cost that patches will be made. Some people crow about how CA did a patch out of the goodness of their hearts. No way! They get paid to do their work every day. You cannot do any work once you are in a salaried position and claim you aren't being paid for it.
If you ask me, CA has NO concept at all of what customer service is. People make valid complaint about flaws, bugs, features, or whatever, and CA chooses to take offense at the descriptors rather than address the problem. I firmly believe Shogun's statement was a simple attempt at damage control, designed to deflect responsibility away from the devs where it properly belongs. They have options. Other software companies make patches to support their products, CA can too. They simply choose not to.
Not quite correct, IMHO. If CA did not receive money for that patch from Activision, CA as a company basically "did it for free".Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Celt
If an employee of CA throws in additional working hours on top of the work for the regular projects to work on a patch that is not covered by the contract with Activision and does not get extra pay for it, this is "doing it for free".
If I do some additional work this weekend, that falls outside the project I am actually working on, to e.g. help a colleague, I would definitely call that "doing it for free".
Fixed it. Now it's in proper laymens terms :happyg:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane
Looks like Bureacratese to me, big K ;)
~:cheers:Quote:
Originally Posted by mxlm
hehe - my employer calls it "going the extra-mile" :computer: :whip:Quote:
Originally Posted by kekvitirae
I'm not saying it's fair or nice, but I've put in my share of 100 hour work weeks and helping others with problems. It goes with the territory in software development. There is a strong sense of team with these projects, and as we all know: There's no "I" in TEAM. If you go into that kind of environment, you should have your eyes open enough to know the demands on your time can be extreme to say the least, and you won't be paid a penny more, so get your money when you negotiate your starting salary!
A salaried position is for a certain number of hours each week, and the VI patch was done afterhours not on company time. The company definitely wanted VI 2.0 to be the end of developement on that engine, and had already announced that MTW/VI v2.0 had been end-of-lifed. The 56 year bug was in advertently introduced in VI v2.0 by a programmer who was trying to improve the game against Activision's wishes. So, the programmers made the VI v2.01 patch without draining time from other projects. In the process of making that patch, additional enhancements were made to the game which got the game one step beyond where it was going to be left.Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Celt
CA can make patches even if they are not funded by the publisher, but the likelyhood of that is low since there seems to be a lot of pressure to move on to the new project.
"A salaried position is for a certain number of hours each week"
:laugh4: ROFLMAO
Really? I'd love to get a job at a place with that policy. My experience is that software development salary is offered not for a number of hours in a week, but rather to do "Whatever it takes" to get the job done. Well, at least that's the American way. Perhaps they really expect only 40 hours from salaried people in the UK?
Puzz,Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
You sure CA did the patch on there own? As I recall, the patch was tested by Activision, which is one of the reasons it took so long....
Though, I believe, they did through a couple of things in or on top of the *tested* version; such as :green generals:, which (I think) was unsupported.
---
Amen!Quote:
I'm in manufacturing myself, and personally, I almost like to see negative feedback on my products, because then I can fix a problem that probably has affected way more people than I realize. Also, you can see what bothers the consumer - not always what you think.
---
I really don't know what's been going on a the .com site, but, personally, *I'd* really appreciate CA addressing the question of WHY, they will not create and release *unofficial* patches. MANY other developers do so.Quote:
Were their campaign to be as successful as they hope, all it would do is to harm the Total War series. For there to be another official patch, the QA cost would need to be funded by Activision and this is apparently not going to happen. This is obviously beyond CA's control so please stop giving CA grief over this.
Why?
The COMMUNITY is willing to do the testing, so what's the problem?
Waiting to buy 2-6 months after the release of the expansion wont "encourage" Activision (who drives the schedule and pays CA) to do things differently, all it will do is convince them that expansions/future Total War games won't sell as well (publisher marketing types usually look at immediate sales to gauge a game's success).
A better approach is to buy it immediately when it comes out, and tell your friends to do the same. This will make the game sell better, thus making Activision think it's worth it's while to invest more in the franchise, and giving CA more clout to make the game better. Poorer sales due to people sitting on the fence for a few months will just push things in the wrong way.
This is reality, this is how a game that goes through a publisher works. I don't like it, but the only alternative is to start a new publishing company with a different philosophy. Unfortunately, Activision is one of the best publishers with respect to how they treat developers. It only gets worse with others like EA. I shudder to think of the pile of stinking brown stuff that RTW would have been had EA been calling the shots.
I disagree. Buying a pig in a poke just encourages the production of garbage. Once they have your dollars, they are done with you. If you hold back your dollars based on not being able to trust their quality, they will be forced to address the quality properly. Isn't it funny how console games are never patched? Hmm, almost proves you can do much better doesn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by hoof
In the short term, and for the love of Total War, it makes sense to buy the expansion immediately.
In the long term however, the industry needs to acnowledge the critical consumer and the demands we bring to the field. A half-finished game may still be bought by a pimple-faced teen if the adverts are good or it sounds neat, but us older gamers have already made that mistake at least once, and won't do it again. As the average age of gamers increase so does the average intelligence... (or at least wisdom).
I say wait until you percieve the product as finished - then buy (or don't if it isn't).
Maybe Old Celt, but the boycott/wait tactic assumes that the product you're working on will be made anyway. If the boycott only achieves the reduction in funding/cancellation of the product, have you achieved your goal? I, personally, love the TW series. I want it improved. Killing the TW series by boycotting the initial releases will not get it improved, it will simply take away the thing I love.
The "don't buy it because it rewards poor execution" tactic only works in certain circumstances. Being an "insider" in the gaming industry has shown me that this is not one of those situations. If you truly want change, you've got to learn how the system *really* works, and adopt a strategy that works in the system. Otherwise you may just get unexpected results.
Good. That's exactly the message they should be getting. Future TW games won't sell as well as they stand now. Knowing what I do now, I would not buy RTW. I will not buy the RTW expansion when it comes out. Hopefully, others who share the view on the quality of the support will do the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by hoof
You seem to be of the opinion that we, as consumers, should be trying to "save" TW. I have no interest in doing that. If the CA is making games I enjoy, I'll buy them. If they aren't, I won't. And if they aren't making games I enjoy, why would I want them to succeed? Their success or lack of it has no impact on me anymore.
CA earned a great deal of goodwill with the STW and MTW series. That, in turn, converted into buying RTW "sight unseen", so to speak. Unfortunately, with RTW, they've lost that goodwill. That goodwill is something they need to earn back. I'm not simply going to hand it over.
Bh
When the product shows it's worth, those interested will purchase it. RTW has not shown it's worth in 2 patches. Thus, it begins to fade to a "wait and see" kind of game for a large amount of peopel who are enthusiastic about the game.Quote:
Originally Posted by hoof
example:
you get excited to see a movie. It's awesome. The next movie is about to come out so you wait all night, get tickets, and see the movie. It doesn't live up to your standards. The sequel will have a more rigorous time ascertaining your money the next time around - you will probably wait and see what others say about it before you take the plunge. Granted, you'll probably end up seeing it, but it might take a few months until it comes out to rent it, or for RTW - till the price comes down and a patch has been released to fix bugs.
There's no I in TEAM, but there is a ME :tongueg:Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Celt
Hey, if you don't want future TW games, go right ahead :)
Me, personally, I like TW games, but I want them to be *better*. Doing something that will help make TW games go away doesn't make them better, it makes them not exist.
Why should CA/Activision spend more $$$ if they're simply gonna get a lower return? The decision will be made to kill the franchise instead, and pour the money into mass-market games that are guaranteed to make money, rather than niche games like RTW.
Why do you think that most movies are the same old garbage over and over again? Because every time a new concept is tried, it's money-making potential eventually goes down (for various reasons). Same with games, all game concepts (except the cliche ones that will always make money) will eventually become money-losers. Choosing to boycott future products won't make them better, it'll just hasten the inevitable and soon we won't have large-scale battlefield simulations like RTW, MTW, and STW any more.
If that's your goal, by all means go for it. Me, personally, I will continue to support CA/Activision and the TW franchise. The game may not be perfect, and have several glaring issues that bug the heck out of me. However, I would prefer several more games in the same vein than no more TW games. If you feel different, by all means go ahead with your plan to not buy any more TW games (or wait until after the release).
You answered your own question right there. That's why. It's because people like you continue to pay for the product even when you're unsatisfied with it. Why should they have any incentive to make a better product when they don't have to? Make the mediocre mass-market drek, knowing full well that people will continue to buy it.Quote:
Originally Posted by hoof
Meanwhile, we have the smaller, more independent companies continuing to make high quality games. It's too bad, CA used to be such a company.
Bh
GAH!Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Celt
But... there is a "ME"!
GAH!
GAH!
LOL Vanya then noticed somebody else posted the "ME" thingie after Vanya had hit submit...
Oh, well... Great minds think alike... Only, Vanya has no head... What does that say about ole K?
GAH!
It says that Kekvit needs to stop playing Egyptians. :tongueg:Quote:
Originally Posted by Vanya
-
ROTFLMAO! :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by kekvitirae
-
Nor (as my boss is fond of reminding me) is there an "I" in "shut up and get back to work."Quote:
Originally Posted by kekvitirae
:whip: