Should Blood Pack Be DLC Or A Patch?

[Humble Warrior]

Why should it be? Because it wasn't in from the beginning? Can you blame CA for wanting a lower age rating for some countries to help sales?

Yes.

But seriously, I didn`t say anything about it being in from the beginning. I simply do not believe we should be charged. Give it it`s 18 rating with aclause. Job done.

[Markas]

Yes.

I see. Well, there goes that kernel for an argument...

Yes.

But seriously, I didn`t say anything about it being in from the beginning. I simply do not believe we should be charged. Give it it`s 18 rating with aclause. Job done.

ah good you edited it. What kind of clause with an 18 rating? Surely even that would have a huge effect on sales. You can't blame a business for acting in a sensible business-like way.

[Radzeer]

I think the business model behind this got it wrong. It should have been a free dlc, and then Steam measuring the volume of blood you spill in the battle and charge accordingly. Therefore, more bloodthirsty gamers would pay more, and those who keep the battlefield nice and tidy would pay less. There could either be a fixed blood/pixel ratio or a more progressive rate like in income taxes (get a bonus liter after 20 liters or so).



On a more serious note, the real question here is of course the business model which tries to conform the largest audience possible for the most profit possible and across the most countries possible. That's capitalism.

[Humble Warrior]

I see. Well, there goes that kernel for an argument...



ah good you edited it. What kind of clause with an 18 rating? Surely even that would have a huge effect on sales. You can't blame a business for acting in a sensible business-like way.

Radzeer, pretty much said it for me.

But a good business model is not just charging for everything under the sun. A good business model is also showing a nod of thanks to the fans and customers by giving them something FREE. Especially when it`s the kind of mature fans that have asked for this for years.

Bad luck for those under 18, but they`ll soon grow and be able to use it too. Also, TW is all about violence and war, it shouldn`t even be technically 16 but 18 rated. Although i`ve seen bloodier movies that are 16 rated- Go figure.

It`s churlish to charge, but not churlish to complain about it since it sets a bad precedent, CA must know it.

[Markas]

Radzeer, pretty much said it for me.

But a good business model is not just charging for everything under the sun. A good business model is also showing a nod of thanks to the fans and customers by giving them something FREE. Especially when it`s the kind of mature fans that have asked for this for years.

Hey maybe they will one day, but they are under no obligation whatsoever to do so. I'm suprised they even bothered with the blood pack as it has no real intrinsic changes to gameplay. Sounds like a favour to the communuity enough to me, yet people still complain.

It`s churlish to charge, but not churlish to complain about it since it sets a bad precedent, CA must know it.

It's foolish to believe you should anything for free.

[Humble Warrior]

It's foolish to believe you should anything for free.

Actually that`s a foolish thing to say.

How about one day you end up lying on the road side after being mugged. Would you want someone passing by to help you, but only if you paid him 10 bucks first?


How about the government starts charging for the air you breathe and cuts off your oxygen supply to your home because `It`s foolish to believe you should have anything for free?"

Not everything is free, it can`t be, but some things are and should be. Always.

Maybe you should stop typing.

[Robin de Bodemloze]

How about the government starts charging for the air you breathe and cuts off your oxygen supply to your home because `It`s foolish to believe you should have anything for free?"

They already do that. It's called ecotax.

[krisslanza]

Actually that`s a foolish thing to say.

How about one day you end up lying on the road side after being mugged. Would you want someone passing by to help you, but only if you paid him 10 bucks first?


How about the government starts charging for the air you breathe and cuts off your oxygen supply to your home because `It`s foolish to believe you should have anything for free?"

Not everything is free, it can`t be, but some things are and should be. Always.

Maybe you should stop typing.

Maybe you should stop thinking in extremes.

[Humble Warrior]

They already do that. It's called ecotax.

Er, actually, no.

[Radzeer]

Looks like capitalism is a trigger.

Anyhow, I agree with Humble on a good business model being "nice" to customers on occasion because that makes it sustainable. Nobody wants everything to be free, as there is actually no such thing as a free lunch - somebody pays for all products in some way. CA could argue that the low price is actually "being nice" as many have noted the money you need to pay is not very much. From this perspective the question is whether this small amount of money triggers the fan reaction the way how CA wants it. I.e. if the majority says that it is good stuff for little money, CA gets what they want. If the majority is pissed off because it is not free, they miscalculated. It's a simple business decision.

The more speculative question thus the broader general business model in which users pay for bits and pieces. Somebody noted somewhere that this conforms the multiplayer crowd better who tend to be more ok with this. Those who play mostly in single player mode would pay for expansions if that is substantial enough, but probably less so for some relatively minor stuff. So if the business model will cater for the multiplayer users AND the above pricing tactic works, we'll see this more in the future.

It is one thing whether people think of it as moral or immoral. That depends on the individual preferences and perceptions about what is moral. It is a completely different thing whether it is a successful business model. If yes, morality will not play a role. At least not until the majority demands it.

Think about the green products. Most companies could not care for the environment because it lessened their profit. Once a generation of consumers grew up for whom being green is important, being green became a good business model. It's a different question whether these companies are green or not, but they sell their products or green, satisfying the moral compass of the consumers.

So as always, business decisions are driven by the need to maximalize profit on the one side (which is normal) and satisfying the majority of consumers on the other.

[Markas]

Actually that`s a foolish thing to say.

How about one day you end up lying on the road side after being mugged. Would you want someone passing by to help you, but only if you paid him 10 bucks first?


How about the government starts charging for the air you breathe and cuts off your oxygen supply to your home because `It`s foolish to believe you should have anything for free?"

Not everything is free, it can`t be, but some things are and should be. Always.

Maybe you should stop typing.

I do you hope you aren't serious. Perhaps I should (rather disapointingly) have to re-iterate we are talking about a product being sold in a software market not a commonly occuring Chalcogen or commentaries on Human compassion. That I think is somewhat beyond the scope of this argument!

As for your point that it would be nice to reward older loyal customers well yeah that's sensible but how do they find out who is a casual games and who has being playing TW games for years?

[Greve Af Göteborg]

People should understand that getting something for free in this world is luxury, and not something that should be taken for granted because of "ethics".

[Markas]

I would really like to know where this wierd sense of entitlement for free stuff is coming from. Do people not buy products other than computer games? I can hardly think of any product where I get free stuff more than six months after purchase. Can the 'entitlers' (as they shall now be known) help me out?

[ngr]

Blood should be DLC. Its presence in default version will make game illegal in many countries. So, if you want blood in game (and you're old enough , you can add it separately. For me it's fair marketing. You buy the core game and then you could pay for additional things that will make your game "special" - blood, more equipment and retainers for your MP avatar, maybe some special music for SP. In other words, it's fair to pay for cosmetic changes for your game.

What is really unfair is DLCs like Hattori or Ikko Ikki clans and special units for factions. These things should be part of core game. Diversity is the spirit of any game. Without these factions and units STW2 really becomes more dully. Five years ago nobody would even think about separating these things from game, 'coz it meant to make game less attractive for customers. The only reason it happens now - there's no any real competitor for CA so far.

[fieldmarshal]

I would say should be a patch if all it was is some blood splatter effects, but that is not the case. Along with the blood, there are new animations, especially decapitations, and i believe some sounds as well. This is not something modders can easily do. So the price is justified, since quiet a bit of work was put into it. Besides, no one here knows the time it took to make all these blood effects, and companies simply cannot work for free.

[leeho730]

There is nothing that stops developers and publishers from releasing free DLCs onto the steam. Examples are Dungeon defenders that released numerous free DLCs including development kit (i.e. mod tools). Witcher 2 has been releasing some of their DLC for their updates.

For those who believe that CA had to cut out gore and blood: game publishers can edit game contents so that games can be published to specific country. L4D2 has less gore in Australian version, for example, and Fallout 3 Japan version did not include bomb detonation part of the quest (the quest could not be completed no matter what). After all, publishers want to sell the game, censorship is rather minor hindrance which can be bypassed with some programming and as you can see Steam is rather very good at that...

I know, we are a part of community of player who would gladly pay for patches. Quite weird, but I guess we are that dedicated. Imagine Blizzard, Bethesda and Valve starting to charge for major updates through DLC. Mind you, I don't mind DLCs as long as they are somewhat meaningful.

[Lionheart11]

I think it would have been a nice gesture of CA to make it free,make them epic to fans.

Im not spewing it is not, i like the fact they are doing more.

Yes its about the all mighty dollar now and not the good old PC days where there was no DLC and everything was free.

It does create a slipper slope for the future , so i agree with OP that we need to be concerned.

Its should have been free but doesnt it change the MA rating?

Ive seen no info on the age rating now as i dont think blood is good young kids that play this game.

[Tyspolir]

Whats next? We pay for the 'core' game (which in reality is like the first chapter) and after that we must buy all other content additionaly for extra money? Piss off.. If I buy a game I expect that it's complete and that minor features are added in patches. 5-10 years ago, this was the normal way how it worked. But the last few years suddenly everything is 'DLC'? Rediculous.

[Humble Warrior]

The sad thing is, this has been on the horizon for years, ever since DLCs started coming out. Now we see what it can become... mini DLCs of stuff that should not be charged for because, technically we paid for all this when we bought the actual game.

Yes, we have already paid for the blood when we bought Shogun 2, we shouldn`t be charged an extra quid for it. Even if CA had released it `free` it wouldn`t really be free, but it would`ve been a grand gesture on their part.

[Markas]

Sure I can help ya. It's a game called "Total War." There's a lot of blood in war, and so in a game about combat, death and casualties at the individual combat level, they believe blood and gore should be shown. In their view, it's not an add-on, it's as basic as having soldiers and weapons shown.

It's been in one TW game so far as I know, MTW2 and it's expansion. Blood is simply a graphical effect. it doesn't effect the mechanics of the game. It is entirely cosmetic. This isn't a demand for scabbards; it's something that will affect the sales of a business due to laws.

Moreover, people have been pointing this out and repeatedly calling for blood in their game since the release of ETW in early 2009. Most people here have already purchased the game they've asked for blood in -- so many don't feel like they should have to pay twice to get the basic feature they've long been asking for.

What? The devs create a game not the players. They were not, in any way, promised and then betrayed over blood and gore. They knew it wasn't in. They got what they paid for. They are not entitled to anything for free because of a feature they wanted wasn't in. Your argument is ridiculous and not worth furthur discussion.

Hardly a sense of entitlement. I do get the strong entitlement vibe from the other side of the transaction though. You know: the side that feels entitled to nickel and dime customers by selling stuff (sometimes "new" sometimes old) whenever it patches what's broken in the game already paid for.

Yeah, it's still a sense of entitlement. Don't like that there wasn't blood in for you to go into a nerdgasm for? TOUGH. Don't buy their products in future then. I fail to see what patches have to do with anything given that blood is a cosmetic effect, so your point is curious at best.