3 new factions! Epirus, Sparta, Athens (DLC)

[Myth]

They have to keep the price of the game to a reasonable level, but the cost of developing has increased substantially since the days of RTW. Hence the DLC trick. Dishonored still costs something like 50 euro on Steam, bar the two DLCs that come with it, for example. Imagine it costing around 80 euro (that's approximately 100-110 USD), that would be absurd.

DLCs are also a way to milk the customer base after the initial sale, because there will always be those who have more money to give. Why wait 3 years for an expansion when you can give them blood splashes or music packs or some ahistorical special unit like Ninja Assassins from Hades and charge between 5 and 15 euro? Sure, some users won't buy the DLC, but let's say that 40% do. This effectively makes it so that you got an extra 5-15 euro on top of the first shipment price from those customers. if the game ships for 60 euro that'd be a hefty 25% increase, and I'd dare say this is pure profit since you didn't really invest that much in the making of this grand "content" you provide.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I agree with all Vuk's gripes, I just can't be bothered with all the commercial rubbish with new games. Just the release the full game!

[Mongoose]

Is it true that the cost of development has increased a lot since RTW? It wouldn't surprise me at all if that's true - just curious to see a source on that.

Yeah, and now if you want to wait and see what reviewers say to make sure that the game is actually worth dropping the $60, you will not be getting the full game. That sounds like the tactics of people who don't have a lot of faith in their product and want to trick and 'force' as many people into buying it ahead of time as possible. Is CA really afraid that their game will suck that much that people won't buy it if they wait to hear what their friends have to say about it? That is pretty worrisome right there.

I resent games that push pre-order purchases, for the reasons you describe. Keeping sales up even in the event of a flop could definitely be a motivation. To play devil's advocate, though, there is also a benign motivation for it: the need to get back the money invested in the game as quickly as possible, which maintains the company. On the other hand, that still means the company tries to push you towards worse deal in order to improve their business - which they have every right to do, but I kinda dislike it.

It still sucks but I do not think we should judge THIS release by the general state of AAA games.

I'm probably doing that to some extent. I pre-ordered Mass Effect 3 and got the 10$ launch DLC, and after playing it my main thought was "wow, that was not worth 70 dollars."

[Kralizec]

I have to echo Vuk's sentiments. I very much dislike the whole practice of DLC. It's not a bad way of distributing content in itself, but I feel it's being abused.

I used to play Call of Duty: MW2 often. After a while they released some DLC map packs, IIRC for 10-15 bucks. I imagine that most did buy them because the original game didn't have that many maps to begin with, but for that same reason I flat out refused. Add to that the fact that the game was bugged as hell when they released those map packs, and still is. I've decided never to buy another game in that series again.

Can I afford these DLC packs? Sure I can. Do I think it's a fair deal? No.

I am simply not going to pay $5 bucks to unlock a new faction which has two new unique units (which are probably just reskins of older models), especially if that faction was historically important enough to count as indespensible, i.e. should have been in the original game. And because CA realizes that most people are not stupid, and because they know that modders can do an equally good or better job if given the opportunity, I fully expect that modding will be restricted to prevent people from adding new factions themselves.

[Lemur]

Game companies are still in the process of figuring out DLC. Anybody remember horse armor?

Also, each company is different. EA, for example, has a long and inarguable history of gouging gamers for every dollar possible. It's fair to assume they are acting in bad faith.

I am not so ready to throw CA under the bus.

[Stuie]

I agree with Lemur. I actually like CA's approach thus far - especially when compared to other companies - the DLC they release is nothing game changing that leaves me feeling like I only have half a game if I don't buy it (basing this on my Shogun 2 experience). You can get away with buying none of it if you want - or wait for the inevitable 75% off sale on Steam if you want, or shell out for it at full price if you want. No one is forcing you to pay full price and the game works as-is without the DLC.

Honestly I'd be happy if Rome 2 had a fully functioning Rome faction and nothing else. You can sell all the others if people want them; put all the up-front dev work into making Rome the best faction it can be. Of course, I'd also prefer multiple start dates... but.. well..

[lars573]

I also agree with the Prosimian. What CA gives you for what they charge is very good. Considering that these three Greek factions are going to be clones of Macedonia putting them out together for $5-$10 isn't us being bled out for cash.

[Vuk]

Game companies are still in the process of figuring out DLC. Anybody remember horse armor?

Also, each company is different. EA, for example, has a long and inarguable history of gouging gamers for every dollar possible. It's fair to assume they are acting in bad faith.

I am not so ready to throw CA under the bus.

Hey, I am not saying they are as bad as EA (I stopped buying all EA games a long time ago), but if they keep going down the road they are on, they will lose my business altogether too. I gave EA chance after chance and they were able to suck a lot of money from me before I just gave up. I am not gonna make that mistake again.
There are ways to do DLC which are not unethical, but what CA is doing is NOT one of them. Forcing people to spend a lot of money on a game that they don't know yet is any good if they want to get the full thing is seriously unethical. In fact, I can think of more colourful ways to describe it than that. There used to be a time when they put out games that they were proud of and relied on word-of-mouth to sell them. Now they fear word-of-mouth, and try to get around the challenges of the bad reputation they believe their game will earn by forcing you to buy early. That is not something that a good team does.

I agree with Lemur. I actually like CA's approach thus far - especially when compared to other companies - the DLC they release is nothing game changing that leaves me feeling like I only have half a game if I don't buy it (basing this on my Shogun 2 experience). You can get away with buying none of it if you want - or wait for the inevitable 75% off sale on Steam if you want, or shell out for it at full price if you want. No one is forcing you to pay full price and the game works as-is without the DLC.

Honestly I'd be happy if Rome 2 had a fully functioning Rome faction and nothing else. You can sell all the others if people want them; put all the up-front dev work into making Rome the best faction it can be. Of course, I'd also prefer multiple start dates... but.. well..

So you are saying it is not unethical for payers to be paying full price for a game that is not full? It is a pretty crappy and limited game if it only has 1 faction Stuie. You may be ok with that, but 90% of gamers would not be. I am having a hard time justifying spending $60 on a strategy game of this scope with only 9 of the factions playable.

I also agree with the Prosimian. What CA gives you for what they charge is very good. Considering that these three Greek factions are going to be clones of Macedonia putting them out together for $5-$10 isn't us being bled out for cash.

I guess you are pretty easy to please. If the three factions are just clones of one already in the game BTW, how can they justify charging people money for them?

[Lemur]

Video made it to YouTube:

[Imperator Invictus]

I hope the next DLC will be about Thracian culture with the three kingdoms of Triballia, Getia and Cimmerian Bosphorus (Spartocids were Thracians) if I understand this format of DLC's for Rome 2 with 3 factions per culture. Other posibilities are: Helenistic culture with Pergamon, Seleucia and Baktria; Illyrian culture with Liburnia, Dalmatia and Dardania; Semitic culture with Judea, Nabatea and Palmyra etc.

[Albastard]

Very excited about the Greek factions!

[komnenos]

I agree with Lemur. I actually like CA's approach thus far - especially when compared to other companies - the DLC they release is nothing game changing that leaves me feeling like I only have half a game if I don't buy it (basing this on my Shogun 2 experience). You can get away with buying none of it if you want - or wait for the inevitable 75% off sale on Steam if you want, or shell out for it at full price if you want. No one is forcing you to pay full price and the game works as-is without the DLC.

Honestly I'd be happy if Rome 2 had a fully functioning Rome faction and nothing else. You can sell all the others if people want them; put all the up-front dev work into making Rome the best faction it can be. Of course, I'd also prefer multiple start dates... but.. well..

Do you remember the price of Shogun 2 as a pre-order?
I think it's better to wait and buy R2TW in Christmas day. The price will extremely come down.

[Mongoose]

I think it's really best to wait. I want to play all the content they're making for it, and if Shogun II is any indication, buying stuff as it comes out (including the expansions) could easily add up to 100-150 dollars.

Not to mention the bugged-out state of most of these games on launch.

[Lemur]

Not to mention the bugged-out state of most of these games on launch.

I thought Shogun II was one of the most stable, feature-complete releases CA has yet managed. Compared to Shogun? Medieval? Not even to wade into the murky waters of Empire and Napoleon.

CA deserves some credit for putting out a polished 1.0 on S2, IMHO.