Who intends to boycott future DLCs and expansions until the game is fixed?

[SamueleD]

It seems to be the general agreement that CA screwed us over this time around, we might disagree about how much, but it's pretty clear that this has been one of the worst launches of TW and that the game is broken (though we might disagree on the degree), on various levels.
Now CA is doing a good job patching up things, I'll give them that, however, the game still isn't ok for me, with the AI inability to put up a fight at least on the levels of Shogun 2 being my main concern (followed by dozens of other, unfortunately). While I hope that CA will fix this game, I don't intend to give them any more of my money, until they do, which is why I won't buy any DLC, expansion or game from CA until Rome II is brought to an acceptable level for me.

My question is: who intends to the same?

[Jester]

i wouldnt call it "boycott". it just doesnt make sense to buy any DLC as long as the game isnt fixed and enjoyable.

[mutad1]

You don't have to do that.Who's going to buy any DLC for a game like this?They got them into "Stalingrad" kind of battle and instead of getting better, they're freezing slowly down and fire is getting smaller and smaller next to them.All they need is to have sales, get additional money floating in order to fix this game.Is not happening I guess.Sega wants to be left with profit and not to spent more money on something dead allready.There be less and less patches until it will stop coming.I hope not, but who knows.

[Spear Dog]

If SEGA wants me to pay full price I'll need a sweetener, otherwise I'll wait until DLC is near complete and basically free.

By the time I get a discounted game it'll have several DLCs included anyway, and eventually Steam will just give me the rest - probably just prior to the release of a new title like they did with ETW DLC earlier this year. At any rate, in the final wash-up Empire DLC added bugger all to the game-play.

All the RTW2 beta tester pre-orderers should be demanding free DLC in the absence of a refund policy, IMO.

[nigelnire]

DLC for Rome 2 would be like offering to sell you wheel trims for a car with no engine in it. Why would anyone even think of buying DLC for this game ? Yes ive bought DLC in the past for Empire. Napoleon and Shogun 2 but hell will freeze over before I buy it for this game.

[SamueleD]

The point is games nowadays make money with DLCs, like it or not. But to sell those DLCs they need to have people who actually enjoy the game, if people don't enjoy the game they can't sell DLCs.
Basically if they want to make other money out of Rome II they have to fix it, but in order to force them to either do that or abandon Rome II altogether, which would make them lose a lot of money, we need to not buy anything and not just say "Oh, look, another piece of the game, I want it, let's buy it, even if the game is unplayable."

It might sound absurd, but, IMO, right now the only chance we have to save TW is not to support it, until it's fixed. CA likes money more than they like making good games, they said it*, but if they want any more of mine they'll have to apply themselves more and actually turn Rome II in a good game.

*http://gamasutra.com/view/feature/16...s_process_.php

[StringingTerror]

I would buy a Hunnic invasion dlc or a campaign orientated one. The scripted prologue was really fun, something like that with cesars accomplishments would be fun.

[mutad1]

Yes that'b be nice of them.However I¨m not playing so what I will be doing with DLC?By the way even though I've preordered a game, until today I haven't gotten any DLC at all )I don't mind it, the was deleted from my HDD, going back to games I do enjoy as SHII, MEDII also playing MOWAS a lot(where CAP make sense, because it is a skirmish kind of game).

[Knight of Heaven]

Not in a hell chance i will buy dlc for this, without the game being substanbcialy improved gameplay/feature wise.
Not to mention the next dlc means nothing to me. ( the schyntian tribes one i mean)
Given the selucid is a free dlc.
I wouldnt mind a iberian dlc, but as the game stands now, i wont buy it anyway.

[John ''True Grit'' Wayne]

Unique generals DLC.
Unique units DLC.
Blood DLC.
Selucid DLC.
I will buy them all if they keep patching the game.

[agnes69]

Bought DLC, and will buy.

[stackero]

There's a problem with poll choice, 'No, not until Rome II is fixed.'

Just as there is now a large amount of people disagreeing over what the definition of 'playability' means,
there's going to be a large amount of people disagreeing over what the definition of 'fixed' means.

To me R2 is too boring to be playable. I marked 'no' on the poll because I have no faith in CA to 'fix' everything that makes R2 boring.
Yes, they will patch it to a degree, add maybe one or two new features then declare the game 'fixed' and flood us with a lot of cool looking stuff in paid DLC. I could be over optimistic even in that assessment.

Maybe they'll prove me wrong. I wish they would because I'd like to play the game.

I didn't buy Shogun 2 because of Empire. Deceived on Empire, now to a sharper degree, on 'Rome 2.' I fell for the corrupt hype and preordered. Allowed myself to be suckered twice in five years by CA. Bye CA.

[Candy_Licker]

No, it's like buying cat food for a dead cat.

If RII gets seriously fixed by patches, and adding immersion/ mandatory feautues with free patches too (unlikely), I might buy DLC/ new TW games in the future.

Right now, the TW series is dead for me. They'd have to leave the path they went and change by 180°, which I doubt they will. Their current company attitude is despicable.

[stackero]

There's a problem with poll choice, 'No, not until Rome II is fixed.'

Just as there is now a large amount of people disagreeing over what the definition of 'playability' means,
there's going to be a large amount of people disagreeing over what the definition of 'fixed' means.

To me R2 is too boring to be playable. I marked 'no' on the poll because I have no faith in CA to 'fix' everything that makes R2 boring.
Yes, they will patch it to a degree, add maybe one or two new features then declare the game 'fixed' and flood us with a lot of cool looking stuff in paid DLC. I could be over optimistic even in that assessment.

Maybe they'll prove me wrong. I wish they would because I'd like to play the game.

I didn't buy Shogun 2 because of Empire. Deceived on Empire, now to a sharper degree, on 'Rome 2.' I fell for the corrupt hype and preordered. Allowed myself to be suckered twice in five years by CA. Bye CA.

Claification "NO Never again'

[Alien Eel]

When game was laggy as hell, I decided not to buy those DLC's with factions that need much better control on map (steppe factions), but performance has become better for me, so I'm now going to buy those DLC's. Game is becoming much better, it was just horrible at start.

[SamueleD]

There's a problem with poll choice, 'No, not until Rome II is fixed.'

Just as there is now a large amount of people disagreeing over what the definition of 'playability' means,
there's going to be a large amount of people disagreeing over what the definition of 'fixed' means.

To me R2 is too boring to be playable. I marked 'no' on the poll because I have no faith in CA to 'fix' everything that makes R2 boring.
Yes, they will patch it to a degree, add maybe one or two new features then declare the game 'fixed' and flood us with a lot of cool looking stuff in paid DLC. I could be over optimistic even in that assessment.

Maybe they'll prove me wrong. I wish they would because I'd like to play the game.

I didn't buy Shogun 2 because of Empire. Deceived on Empire, now to a sharper degree, on 'Rome 2.' I fell for the corrupt hype and preordered. Allowed myself to be suckered twice in five years by CA. Bye CA.

I did not define "fixed" on purpose, as I know that for different people it will mean different things. You could vote "No, not until is fixed" if that is what it would take, even if you don't think it will be fixed by your definition, it is an effective "No, never again" but a theoretical "No, not until it's fixed".

[nigelnire]

No, it's like buying cat food for a dead cat.

I agree and playing with a dead cat would be more fun than playing Rome 2.

[super_newbie_pro]

I'm sorry but for me the words are important. I do not think the main for this game or bugs problem. Bugs and crashes, it is a short term problem. However what impact the game in the long run, it is the depth of the game, its mechanisms, options have been removed, the tree families, visible military camps on the campaign map as in Rome 1 the passable forests, possible battles in the mountains, the possibility of appointing governors etc. .. etc ... I do not call it fixed, I call it finish the game!

[Kenios]

If your main concern is the AI factions in Rome 2 isn't as aggressive as the ones in Shogun 2, then you will probably remain disappointed. Shogun 2 AI is very aggressive and I think CA realized it is too much for the people they are trying to sell the game to. Some Shogun 2 factions start in a very difficult position, and the only way to survive on higher difficulty is to abandon the homeland, take a boat and quickly sail to a more defensible region. When I see people play Shogun 2 on higher difficulties, I always see all kinds of cheese to exploit both the campaign and battle AI. Though I enjoyed Shogun 2, I believe CA made the right call to tune down the difficulty level.

That said, I will definitely buy dlc if it looks interesting enough. I didn't care much for the greek factions dlc. C'mon, just how many phalanx factions do you really need?

[Knight of Heaven]

I didn't buy Shogun 2 because of Empire. Deceived on Empire, now to a sharper degree, on 'Rome 2.' I fell for the corrupt hype and preordered. Allowed myself to be suckered twice in five years by CA. Bye CA.

shogun 2 and its expantions are worth it though, better then empire, and rome 2 imo.