Creative Assembly Business Practice Discussion Thread (Rome II)

[alQamar]

Rome 2 Total War: 111,67€

Metro Redux Bundle: 39,98€
Arma 3 Digital Deluxe : 49,99 €
Hegemony Rome - Ther Rise of Caesar: 22,99€

All these titles have DLCs or addon included into the price.

How many games I could buy with 111,67€?

I don't share CA Business Practice.

That's all I've got to say:



a part in that video says: "It's perfect for trophy " and guess it is right if you read the changelog

New Achievements

to unlock

For owners of Nomadic Tribes DLC:

• We Can’t Axe for More
• Put On Your Red Light
• My Kingdom for a Horse

Free with Caesar in Gaul update:

• Baktria to the Future

For owners of Caesar in Gaul DLC:

• Struck a Nervii
• That’s my Boii
• Anatolia Not to Come

For owners of Hannibal at the Gates DLC:

• Celtiberia Victorious
• Fast & Lusitani
• Tyrannus

Free with Getae and Pydna Update:

• Getae In!
• Phalanx But No Thanks

For owners of Pirates & Raiders DLC:

• Hoist the Colours!
• Thrace for Impact
• Megas Basileus
• Comontorios Eternal

[krisslanza]

The first part of your post doesn't make sense. Of course it would give CA an incentive to cut content as they can then release it a later date as paid-for DLC, increasing their profit. And examples of DLC which people have proven was cut content are merc naked swords and camel catas, not to mention the Greek City States.

It doesn't give them an incentive to cut content, because nothing proves they cut content.
All it has shown is they have completed content that was never going to be finished otherwise, it doesn't prove it was cut out or purposely not finished until later.

[alQamar]

It doesn't give them an incentive to cut content, because nothing proves they cut content.
All it has shown is they have completed content that was never going to be finished otherwise, it doesn't prove it was cut out or purposely not finished until later.

Oh please Kriss, sit down and calm. Greek states DLC was a classic example of cut content, how on earth you can presale a DLC before release. I am ok if DLCs do add meaningful stuff like campaigns, but faction DLCs are just a robbery, and thank god - or thanks to the modders - we do not have to buy them.

[GoTW Kubee]

It doesn't give them an incentive to cut content, because nothing proves they cut content.
All it has shown is they have completed content that was never going to be finished otherwise, it doesn't prove it was cut out or purposely not finished until later.

Again, the first sentence in this post does not flow logically. The 2nd clause (nothing proves they cut content) does not give an adequate reason for the 1st clause (It doesn't give them an incentive to cut content). Clearly making more money would be a good incentive for cutting content (as long as they don't get caught). I'm not saying that just because there is an incentive for them to cut content, that it automatically means that they do so. But you can't deny that it would help them financially (i.e. getting payed twice rather than once), therefore indeed giving them an incentive to cut content. You're letting your blind defense of CA get in the way of forming a coherent argument.

And then you admit that they did in fact cut out content from the base game and sold it later.

[krisslanza]

Oh please Kriss, sit down and calm. Greek states DLC was a classic example of cut content, how on earth you can presale a DLC before release. I am ok if DLCs do add meaningful stuff like campaigns, but faction DLCs are just a robbery, and thank god - or thanks to the modders - we do not have to buy them.

No it doesn't. There's a few months, or more, between when a game is "finished" and when it is actually buyable. Day One DLC is typically made during this window when the team is left with nothing to do, because you can't work on the game itself because its being reviewed/checked/etc.

It isn't like when a deadline comes up, the game immediately hits the market then and there. Rome 2 was probably done for a few months, if not more, before it was actually sold.

Again, the first sentence in this post does not flow logically. The 2nd clause (nothing proves they cut content) does not give an adequate reason for the 1st clause (It doesn't give them an incentive to cut content). Clearly making more money would be a good incentive for cutting content (as long as they don't get caught). I'm not saying that just because there is an incentive for them to cut content, that it automatically means that they do so. But you can't deny that it would help them financially (i.e. getting payed twice rather than once), therefore indeed giving them an incentive to cut content. You're letting your blind defense of CA get in the way of forming a coherent argument.

And then you admit that they did in fact cut out content from the base game and sold it later.

Suggesting it gives them an incentive to cut content though, assumes they ever cut content in the first place. While yes, if they hypothetically did, it would, but there's nothing to prove they ever have, or ever will either.

And I didn't do that anywhere. All I said was unfinished content that would've otherwise never been finished, or released, was completed and sold.

[Lord Baal]

Yeah... like that's specially true with digital releases, even more with the ones that comes with "day one patch"....

[GoTW Kubee]

Suggesting it gives them an incentive to cut content though, assumes they ever cut content in the first place. While yes, if they hypothetically did, it would, but there's nothing to prove they ever have, or ever will either.

And I didn't do that anywhere. All I said was unfinished content that would've otherwise never been finished, or released, was completed and sold.

It actually doesn't assume that though. Let's say, for example, my mother were found strangled in her bed one morning. In this scenario, she is a multi billionaire and my only surviving parent. I am her only child and stand to inherit all her money. Now, I had a clear incentive to murder my mother as I would benefit financially from her death. That is unquestionable. This does not mean to say, as you seem to be suggesting, that saying I had an incentive to murder my mother assumes that I ever murder people. Now, obviously there are very many reasons for me not to murder my mother which I personally judge to outweigh the incentive (I love my mother, I don't want to go to jail, she often cooks me meals, etc.), but that doesn't mean I wouldn't have an incentive to kill her. By the same token, obviously CA does have an incentive to cut content, and no, saying they have an incentive to cut content does not imply that they actually do so. So sorry but you're wrong.

You admitted that they had worked on units which they sold later on as DLC before release. That is cut content.

And are you seriously suggesting that they only made the quintessential Sparta, Athens and Epirus as an afterthought? They are very popular factions so that wouldn't make very much sense for them. What seems more likely then is that they cut them off from the game to use as pre-order bait.

[alQamar]

Kriss your opinion is nothing but an assumption as long you are not part of the CA dev team and can definitely say the stuff including Greek city is not cut or locked content. At the end it does not matter if you are right or Kubee with his assumptions. The problem is the root DLC are sold for unreasonable prices exceeding the original price of a game (not limited to Rome 2) Civ 5, Tomb Raider, L.A. Noire comes to my mind.

We are talking about snippets of content most of the time and it is, at least for the most people, completely unreasonable to buy them, especially when we consider that later sold gold editions or sorts include them all for a price far under the one you would have paid for an early adoption or pre-order or single buy of them.

[krisslanza]

You admitted that they had worked on units which they sold later on as DLC before release. That is cut content.

And are you seriously suggesting that they only made the quintessential Sparta, Athens and Epirus as an afterthought? They are very popular factions so that wouldn't make very much sense for them. What seems more likely then is that they cut them off from the game to use as pre-order bait.

I think we're not agreeing on the meaning of 'cut content'.
When I see 'cut content' I read it as: "It was finished and ready to go, but they removed it to sell it later."
But if you mean 'cut content' as: "Unfinished features or product." then I could see that. In this case, they would have otherwise never been finished or released, so which do you prefer? Them to be completed, then sold, or to be unfinished and never (officially) released?

And I highly doubt that. Even in the age of digital releases, there is still a window of months before the game is released when they could've gotten the budget, or go ahead, to finish those factions instead of them never seeing the light of day.

EDIT:
Though I'm just going to drop this here. We're going to do nothing but talk in circles at this rate.

[GoTW Kubee]

I think we're not agreeing on the meaning of 'cut content'.
When I see 'cut content' I read it as: "It was finished and ready to go, but they removed it to sell it later."
But if you mean 'cut content' as: "Unfinished features or product." then I could see that. In this case, they would have otherwise never been finished or released, so which do you prefer? Them to be completed, then sold, or to be unfinished and never (officially) released?

And I highly doubt that. Even in the age of digital releases, there is still a window of months before the game is released when they could've gotten the budget, or go ahead, to finish those factions instead of them never seeing the light of day.

EDIT:
Though I'm just going to drop this here. We're going to do nothing but talk in circles at this rate.

I'd prefer them to release stuff which is actually new in their DLCs, rather than finished-off old stuff, and with the old stuff they could just do what they did with Sele (finish it off and release it in a patch). But OK I'll probably drop this too, and that's the way I feel with 90% of discussions on this forum :/

[Huberto]

And are you seriously suggesting that they only made the quintessential Sparta, Athens and Epirus as an afterthought? They are very popular factions so that wouldn't make very much sense for them. What seems more likely then is that they cut them off from the game to use as pre-order bait.

Day 1 DLC = cut content. Full stop. No exceptions.

Second, the fact that those factions were available free w/pre-order = pre-order bait. Probably because the game was in terrible shape, they needed to hook the maximum number with pre-orders so we got Sparta, Athens, and Epirus.

And they hooked many hundreds of thousands in this manner before the honest (embargoed) reviews started piling in.

[LestaT]

Rome 2 Total War: 111,67€

Metro Redux Bundle: 39,98€
Arma 3 Digital Deluxe : 49,99 €
Hegemony Rome - Ther Rise of Caesar: 22,99€

All these titles have DLCs or addon included into the price.

How many games I could buy with 111,67€?

I don't share CA Business Practice.

If you really want to look at it that way then you'll have to wait for Rome 2 GOTY Edition which include all DLCs (except Bloodpack) and all expansions in one go for the price of $59.90 when it went on sale in 2019.

[Super7700]

Day 1 DLC = cut content. Full stop. No exceptions.

Second, the fact that those factions were available free w/pre-order = pre-order bait. Probably because the game was in terrible shape, they needed to hook the maximum number with pre-orders so we got Sparta, Athens, and Epirus.

And they hooked many hundreds of thousands in this manner before the honest (embargoed) reviews started piling in.

Day 1 DLC is not necessarily cut content, from CA's explanation behind the Pontus day 1 free-LC it appears that companies product lock their content a few months before release and anything created after this won't be in the release. So during this time they can get coders and artists to work on the additional content that wouldn't have made it into the release but can be used for DLCs. I don't see anything wrong here at all, unless there is conclusive evidence that they had already finished the Greek states before the product lock.

Also, while the pre-order incentive of the Greek states was a very clever strategy, I don't believe there is anything wrong with it. These factions, despite being very popular, aren't really essential factions for a game set in this period so in my opinion CA is under no obligation to make them free.

[Huberto]

Day 1 DLC is not necessarily cut content, from CA's explanation behind the Pontus day 1 free-LC it appears that companies product lock their content a few months before release and anything created after this won't be in the release. So during this time they can get coders and artists to work on the additional content that wouldn't have made it into the release but can be used for DLCs. I don't see anything wrong here at all, unless there is conclusive evidence that they had already finished the Greek states before the product lock.

Also, while the pre-order incentive of the Greek states was a very clever strategy, I don't believe there is anything wrong with it. These factions, despite being very popular, aren't really essential factions for a game set in this period so in my opinion CA is under no obligation to make them free.

I suppose the Day 1 patch was "free-LC" then? Your definition of game-lock, a.k.a. 'going gold' simply doesn't hold water for a mandatory Steam, PC only title.

You have foolishly stepped into a snare set by companies like SEGA/CA that are very focused on getting you to accept new definitions of game content, i.e. "incentive content," "exclusives," "free-LC." The truth is that the game needed all sorts of content it didn't have Day 1.

The last thing it needed was non-essential content. Sold for extra. Day 1.

I would put down the Rally Point pipe and look at things from the customer's perspective for a change.

If it's game content, planned and available Day 1 but not in the game, then it's cut content. Full stop. No exceptions.

[krisslanza]

I suppose the Day 1 patch was "free-LC" then? Your definition of game-lock, a.k.a. 'going gold' simply doesn't hold water for a mandatory Steam, PC only title.

You have foolishly stepped into a snare set by companies like SEGA/CA that are very focused on getting you to accept new definitions of game content, i.e. "incentive content," "exclusives," "free-LC." The truth is that the game needed all sorts of content it didn't have Day 1.

The last thing it needed was non-essential content. Sold for extra. Day 1.

I would put down the Rally Point pipe and look at things from the customer's perspective for a change.

If it's game content, planned and available Day 1 but not in the game, then it's cut content. Full stop. No exceptions.

It being on Steam doesn't matter - there's a process a game has to go through before it gets put up on Steam, and Rome 2 also has physical disc copies as well. Rome 2 is subject to the "going gold" process just as any game does.

[Super7700]

I suppose the Day 1 patch was "free-LC" then? Your definition of game-lock, a.k.a. 'going gold' simply doesn't hold water for a mandatory Steam, PC only title.

You have foolishly stepped into a snare set by companies like SEGA/CA that are very focused on getting you to accept new definitions of game content, i.e. "incentive content," "exclusives," "free-LC." The truth is that the game needed all sorts of content it didn't have Day 1.

The last thing it needed was non-essential content. Sold for extra. Day 1.

I would put down the Rally Point pipe and look at things from the customer's perspective for a change.

If it's game content, planned and available Day 1 but not in the game, then it's cut content. Full stop. No exceptions.

There are different groups working on the DLCs and the patches, so I would assume that they were already working on patching the game before the release as well as creating the first DLCs. It's not as if you're going to ask the modellers to fix the siege AI.

[GoTW Kubee]

I think there's been a misunderstanding here. If a feature for a game is made pre-release but not included in the base game, then by definition it is cut content. Therefore the GSC are cut content. No amount of spin or nonsense can change this simple fact.

[Huberto]

It being on Steam doesn't matter - there's a process a game has to go through before it gets put up on Steam, and Rome 2 also has physical disc copies as well. Rome 2 is subject to the "going gold" process just as any game does.

And what happens after the game "goes gold?" You receive a monster update through Steam when you install the game. So what process we talking about again? Creating additional content after the game "goes gold", right?

There are different groups working on the DLCs and the patches, so I would assume that they were already working on patching the game before the release as well as creating the first DLCs. It's not as if you're going to ask the modellers to fix the siege AI.

How do you know that? On Day 1? Patches add new content. There is no difference other than SEGA/CA telling you one is DLC, one is 'base game' content, one is 'patch.'

Saying that some CA staff working are artists, some programmer guys, some UI guys etc. is not addressing the point. All are needed for DLC, for 'patches' and for the 'base game.'

[AnthoniusII]

I explain my self before the title considers insult!
We as players enjoy (in what degree is irellevant) a game.
This game comes with several suport languages packs: French, Italian, German, Spanish, Czech, Russian, Polish and Turkish.
So far so good.
What we have here is a trade Company that uses without copyright lisence the History of an entire nation (Greek/Hellenic) to make profit.
Some will say the human history belongs to "humanity"...
I would answer "propably" but even so gtratidute for those that are your main source of wealth must be given!
So far CA has offendivly ignored the Greek/Hellenic languages in all TW that used Greeks/Hellenes/Byzantines as basis of their games and eventually as basis of their profits.
Imagine: Many of you feel "proud" playing with Sparta or Seleucids etc...and even better you play them in your native language!
How Greeks/Hellenes must feel when they have to play their "own past" and those that plundered it to make profit does not even offer any kind of gratidute????
Some will say "CA did not translate the game in other langauges of nations that apear in the games too".
I will answer that this is also offending too! When you use an entire nation's history as basis for your profits atleast show some respect fpr it and acknowledge your moral obligation for them! CA proudly posted that had British Admiraldy help for the blueprints of the ships of it in ETW. Knowing the British law that NOTHING is free CA payed them to have access to that material.
What payment Greeks should demand from someone that uses their history and culture without any permision ?
Why CA is so hostile against Greeks and their language? Every post i posted in their forums in this matter were deleted!

[warman222]

Every post i posted in their forums in this matter were deleted!

Maybe it's because you post like a mad man with an ancient warfare/language fetish?