Shogun 2 Total War silly questions

[Ludens]

I don't know the reasons behind Empire's unmoddability, but speculation based on flawed and biased views of how a game is created is hardly worthy of posting. CA and/or SEGA bashing isn't really required here. Get back on topic or move we'll move it elsewhere.

What he said. I only want to add that the adoption of third-party software is not SEGA's decision, nor would it come from a desire to frustrate modders. Modders aren't a threat to the gaming industry; quite the opposite in fact.

[Krusader]

What he said. I only want to add that the adoption of third-party software is not SEGA's decision, nor would it come from a desire to frustrate modders. Modders aren't a threat to the gaming industry; quite the opposite in fact.

Some hold this view, but others do not. I read an interview some years ago (can't find it anymore) where an Activision rep said they really did not want people playing older games, as they would rather see gamers move on to new releases. (In my opinion that just showed that many of the higher-ups in games industry don't understand gamers, seemingly comparing them to moviegoers.
On a similar note, some higher-ups most likely view mods as a threat to DLC profits too.

[Ludens]

Some hold this view, but others do not. I read an interview some years ago (can't find it anymore) where an Activision rep said they really did not want people playing older games, as they would rather see gamers move on to new releases. (In my opinion that just showed that many of the higher-ups in games industry don't understand gamers, seemingly comparing them to moviegoers.
On a similar note, some higher-ups most likely view mods as a threat to DLC profits too.

Both are fair points, although I wonder if DLC are big money-spinners right now. Personally, I think the comments of Activision's boss indicate personal arrogance rather than company policy. I mean: what kind of response did he expect? The gaming press certainly didn't appreciate his remarks.

[Lvcretivs]

[...]Personally, I think the comments of Activision's boss indicate personal arrogance rather than company policy.[...]

Well, that may play a role, but I don't really think so...
As well made mods are immensely increasing the 'replay value' of an technically 'obsolete' game - without incurring additional profits for the distributors - it's only rational company policy to 'encourage' gamers to shift to more 'modern' games which are - unsurprisingly - more specifically geared towards lucrative DLC distribution - Shogun 2: Total War will be a prime example, just think of all those possible, nicely portioned add-ons (Imjin war etc. ...) - DLC, which already makes up a significant share of console games-based profits.
The more the technical capacities of modders grow and the more sophisticated modding communities are releasing high-quality mods [eg. EBII, ...), the more major game developers have to think of them as economically dangerous competitors - after all, the buyer incentive 'developer-made = better quality' is rapidly losing it's edge as more and more average players are introduced to mods which are quite objectively 'better' and more enjoyable as the unmodified game. If the developers are intent to receive credits for and garner profits from their own creations rather than for distributing a game engine as 'mod basis', they'll have to 'curb' the moddability of their games...either, rather inadvertently, by sheer technical complexity and negligence (ETW) or intentionally...

[vartan]

When you say significant, how much are we talking about here? How much of profits/revenue whatnot comes from DLC?

[Cambyses]

Well, that may play a role, but I don't really think so...
As well made mods are immensely increasing the 'replay value' of an technically 'obsolete' game - without incurring additional profits for the distributors - it's only rational company policy to 'encourage' gamers to shift to more 'modern' games which are - unsurprisingly - more specifically geared towards lucrative DLC distribution - Shogun 2: Total War will be a prime example, just think of all those possible, nicely portioned add-ons (Imjin war etc. ...) - DLC, which already makes up a significant share of console games-based profits.
The more the technical capacities of modders grow and the more sophisticated modding communities are releasing high-quality mods [eg. EBII, ...), the more major game developers have to think of them as economically dangerous competitors - after all, the buyer incentive 'developer-made = better quality' is rapidly losing it's edge as more and more average players are introduced to mods which are quite objectively 'better' and more enjoyable as the unmodified game. If the developers are intent to receive credits for and garner profits from their own creations rather than for distributing a game engine as 'mod basis', they'll have to 'curb' the moddability of their games...either, rather inadvertently, by sheer technical complexity and negligence (ETW) or intentionally...

Its interesting comparing the TW franchise with, say, the Civilization series. Although Im no expert in the gaming industry, I cant think of any other developer that actually released mods on the same CD as their vanilla version and so positively encourages modding activity, even consulting the modding community on future releases. When you see the success of Civ, you do wonder why more developers dont follow suit.

Having said that M2TW does have some excellent (and stable!) mods already released however. Mainly thanks to the added utilities from Kingdoms IMO. Let's hope EBII can be added to that list shortly.

[Ludens]

As well made mods are immensely increasing the 'replay value' of an technically 'obsolete' game - without incurring additional profits for the distributors - it's only rational company policy to 'encourage' gamers to shift to more 'modern' games which are - unsurprisingly - more specifically geared towards lucrative DLC distribution - Shogun 2: Total War will be a prime example, just think of all those possible, nicely portioned add-ons (Imjin war etc. ...) - DLC, which already makes up a significant share of console games-based profits.

I agree with your logic, but I am not sure about your assumptions. Well-made mods do increase the replayability; but sufficiently for the many buyers to be still playing the game 18 months later when the next game comes out? Most gamers buy a new game every month or two. Any mod that is that good would probably have a noticeable effect on the sales of the first game; and likely encourage people to buy the second game. How many of us have bought M2:TW or intend to do so for the sake of EB2?

Mods can be a threat to DLC, I agree, but just how much revenue are we talking about here? Personally, I question if DLC is worth the developers' time in the first place: they should be focusing on the next game, or the next expansion, rather than serving up skin-packs and minor campaigns. In other words: DLC is always going to be overpriced to make it worth it for the developers. This being the case, even without mods available DLC will never be a major source of income.

[Lvcretivs]

[...] Well-made mods do increase the replayability; but sufficiently for the many buyers to be still playing the game 18 months later when the next game comes out? [...]

A valid point, but this seems actually be the case with R:TW - four years after it's release - which evidently has a fairly thriving fan/modding community with major projects both announced and released. On the other hand - are eg. the 'hardcore' EB I players really statistically representative?

Mods can be a threat to DLC, I agree, but just how much revenue are we talking about here? [...]

That's quite a critical point - I completely agree with you that such an 'analysis', if based on rather shaky, probably unrealistic assumptions about expected profits shouldn't be taken very seriously - but this article, focusing on console games,as well as the second half of this article could possibly clear up the issue - and the underlying economical/PR concepts - a bit (insofar as these aspects are transferable to PC strategy games...). I confess, I'm not very good at economics, so don't build on my reasoning...;)

[...] Personally, I question if DLC is worth the developers' time in the first place: they should be focusing on the next game, or the next expansion, rather than serving up skin-packs and minor campaigns. In other words: DLC is always going to be overpriced to make it worth it for the developers. This being the case, even without mods available DLC will never be a major source of income.

Again a perfectly valid and convincing point, that raises an rather interesting (cf. the OP ;), speculative question: What if DLC should rather be seen as instrument of an medial 'image policy', creating the illusion of 'customers/fanbase support' in an desperate attempt to reestablish the endangered 'qualitative superiority' of SEGA/Activision? A further, if not primary purpose of distributing DLC could as well be effective camouflage of 'creative/technical stagnation' on the developer's part - a situation owned to the TW franchise's peculiar position on the genre crossroads between RTS and TBS - eg. compensating the lack of advanced strategic/tactical AI with cosmetic 'eyecandy' and new 'features' geared towards an not so discerning audience...?

EDIT: A rather interesting and critical blog entry about 'Sun Tzu as an AI Design Guide?'

[MisterFred]

I don't buy Total War games any more unless there's a mod I want to play. I didn't get Medieval 2 until I heard EB II was coming out, and I'm pretty sure I'll never buy Empire Total War. Unfortunately, there's no way for the companies to know this. It's one of those invisible statistics. Far simpler to just assume that people playing older mods when your new game comes out are not buying the new game - that's probably what I look like to them.

But the truth of the matter is I've never trusted CA's vanilla campaigns ever since war dogs were, apparently, the most powerful unit on the ancient era battlefield. Which is a shame, since I genuinely enjoyed the Shogun Total War single player (no sieges, yay!).

From everything I've read, I made the right decision. I mean, who wants to play an Empire-era game where the AI can't manage a naval invasion or send the Europeans after India? And really, Sun Tzu as an AI design guide? That's a steaming pile of bullcrap - elephant sized. Programming an AI is genuinely hard, but knowing the basics of what you want it to do isn't. Pure propaganda, especially in a game where espionage is so basic.

[Ludens]

A valid point, but this seems actually be the case with R:TW - four years after it's release - which evidently has a fairly thriving fan/modding community with major projects both announced and released. On the other hand - are eg. the 'hardcore' EB I players really statistically representative?

I doubt it. EB has been downloaded 10.000 times, but most of those probably played the mod for a month or two and then moved on. How many actually played the mod for longer than a year? I also wonder if the popularity of R:TW mods has something to do with dissatisfaction about the way the series is going. Every new instalment has ambitious new features, yet the developers can't get the basics right: balancing and A.I.

That's quite a critical point - I completely agree with you that such an 'analysis', if based on rather shaky, probably unrealistic assumptions about expected profits shouldn't be taken very seriously - but this article, focusing on console games,as well as the second half of this article could possibly clear up the issue - and the underlying economical/PR concepts - a bit (insofar as these aspects are transferable to PC strategy games...).

Interesting. I admit I am out of depth here too.

What if DLC should rather be seen as instrument of an medial 'image policy', creating the illusion of 'customers/fanbase support' in an desperate attempt to reestablish the endangered 'qualitative superiority' of SEGA/Activision?

Possible, although it would be akin to solving a problem by denying it. Then again, corporations aren't always rational about threads towards their position, as Activision's boss has proved.

EDIT: A rather interesting and critical blog entry about 'Sun Tzu as an AI Design Guide?'

I quite agree. Sun Tzu's work is not innovative: it is timeless because he wrote down the basic principles of strategy. For that matter: the A.I. of the original Shogun was based on Sun Tzu. Did CA forget about him in the games they made in between? Or are they just attempting to restore the fanbase's faith in their ability to produce a strong A.I. opponent?

[Ibrahim]

What he said. I only want to add that the adoption of third-party software is not SEGA's decision, nor would it come from a desire to frustrate modders. Modders aren't a threat to the gaming industry; quite the opposite in fact.

well, if you all put it that way, I'm convinced.