Creative Assembly Business Practice Discussion Thread (Rome II)

[Humble Warrior]

I have been called a fanboy but the truth is I know problems when I see them

I just take exception to some of the very abusive posts people put up here when it was cool to bag on R2

You take exception to nothing except your own wrong perceptions of what has happened. Nothing `cool` about it. When I first came here it was to find a certain Mod for MTW2, I didn't even regularly post for a year or two after that. Was very quiet, which is how I like it. Then CA banned me for protesting about Steam (it wasn't even about a TW game) at the very point when they were trying to convince others that Steam was their mother's future god.

Anyway, I never came here to whine, I don't like or enjoy whining. I don't see it as `cool`. I just know when something is wrong and when others are being duped and what I do, I do not just for myself but so that everyone has the game they deserve. neither have I given up on my protest about Steam, but it's hard to stand one's ground when that very ground is shaken by the very people in control of it.

In fact, rather than being cool I am hated by more posters here than you might know, by the very people who love to call me a `Hater`, because they simply don't understand. Some even pm me to let me know. They don't care for the message, but the person. I would much rather be talking about history and how great CA is and hardly appearing like I did once. I loved the TW games once and considered CA great guys once, so it hurt to see them twist the franchise apart with their new direction and treat the fans like throw away confetti, especially when they were stamped out and `purged` for not following the party line. At that time they unwittingly taught me a lesson I won't forget. Many of us went through the same, so TW was a kind of alternative place to voice our concerns.

If it might look `cool` to you that's only because CA ed up RTW2 so much on release that even the most ardent supporter of CA had to turn away. Ca bought that upon themselves, again, nothing to do with `cool`. Many people were forced to `whine` because of CA, not to be `cool`. That kind of talk just makes you sound jealous of something you should not be jealous of. It's all about seeing and being strong enough to say publicly when something is wrong, it takes balls to be that uncool!

edit:
wow, someone's just informed me I made 10000 posts! Total coincidence it happens to be this subject too!

[the lightning legion]

I am sure you wouldn't be hated if you didn't fill your posts with such melodrama

[The Wandering Storyteller]

Individuals in the development team might 'trust you' 100%. But, there's no way a legal department would agree to the idea. You don't accept new ideas from individuals who are not employed by your company in the creative field.



The forums are listened to in the bug fix section. That's why there are still patches going on and they are iterating on ideas which were not successful. I'm not defending the game but you need to stop being so dramatic about this whole thing. The game was released too early, Sega has a habit of doing this with their games and Total War games are complex. They don't ignore players, they try to resolve major problems within the game and iterate on already existing features but aren't going to rebuild large segments of it.

The next 'patch' is an acknowledgement that they are aware of what's upsetting fans. They have access to more user information than you do. They can collect this information through Steam, via multiplayer, via their forums etc. All that information you have, they have too with the addition of data the public has no access to.

There is no chance an established company like CA, owned by one of the largest video game publishers in the world (Sega) would crowd source new feature ideas from individuals without those individuals coming under their employ. This isn't because they don't trust you or because they are ignoring you, it's just too much of a legal risk. It's why Valve, Blizzard, Ubisoft etc. aren't directly asking for story ideas on their forums.

This.

[ASPGolan]

...
The next 'patch' is an acknowledgement that they are aware of what's upsetting fans. They have access to more user information than you do. They can collect this information through Steam, via multiplayer, via their forums etc. All that information you have, they have too with the addition of data the public has no access to.
...

I'm sorry that this debate lost steam and that people don't seem to reach a middle-ground. The issues are polarising, yet again...

To this particular part of the post and to those that agree with Rittsy, I have to reply, it can't end quite here. No, CA doesn't get it and it's part of the problem.

They know they are alienating long-term fans because of the discussions & feedback, yes, but I totally disagree with the other part. The fixes prove that CA, on the one hand, and those people who like the path the game has taken, on the other hand, they both have no idea what drives players away from the game. It's utterly frustrating, this lack of acknowledgement (not the lack of agreement). How can you conclude that CA gets what's "upsetting" a part of it's user-base is beyond me. You might have rephrased it with: "CA knows what's been upsetting me all these months, though I mostly like the game". You see the responses from people and that there are multiple camps that disagree with the vision of the game or particular parts of it. You don't have to agree with any or all of them, but you see there are multiple conflicting views and that some of the people make detailed argumentations about their own (excluding rants and raves, there have been genuine proposals for many particular features and disagreements on the overall view and direction of TWs)... Yet you still conclude that CA gets it! That's not very logical. For example, in your view, how can the fixes to the politics that you've seen in beta15, match any of the constructive proposals for a complete revamp of that section? You don't have to agree that those changes are needed, but do you understand the fact that the current implementation, having an impact on gameplay or not, is conflicting with those people's proposals??

This is why such statements like "CA gets it and they're doing their best" don't make sense to me. It's insulting to a degree, not that it's relevant, everybody is responsible for their own feelings and thoughts.

I'm curious what is left of the point you made after you deal with this particular problem in your argumentation or after someone explains exactly why it's not a problem. Whether you like the game or not, whether you're just upset by the bad release, but have no issues with gameplay now, you can't disagree on usage being too low for the best selling TW to date. If, by some reason that escapes me, disagree, I can always point you to the fact that only 85% of players have more than 1 hour of gameplay (the steam achievement) or that most campaigns with any faction have been completed by less than 5% of players (and I have a feeling that people who like the game complete more than 1 campaign), or to the peak daily users statistics, etc. They're all available on steam. So, if you're in the "I like the game as it is now" category, at the very least you should be able to agree that the game manages to alienate a large part of it's community and it's playerbase, in general. Frankly, my position was always: if people like it, but the community doesn't, than CA made the right choice AND I don't have to be in the right demographics for everything. But I have more and more reasons to believe otherwise and the fact that there is no proper way for them to collect feedback, it's a really big issue IMHO. So if you're in that camp and you still think CA made the right call, then how do you comment low usage? It would be a much more interesting discussion than running in circles around personal preferences.

As it stands now, this patch and the extra content should re-spark users' interest in the game. So we have to see in about 1-2 months if fixing the game as it was meant to be on day 1 is enough to ""un-upset"" the people that have been upset with the game. My bet is on: No, because CA doesn't understand what it's users want. And I'll leave it here, to have it on record.

[Sun Jetzu]

Lets be real, sept 16th 2014 was the REAL launch date for Rome 2. Not Sept 3rd 2013.
My thoughts are the game is finally finished, it has the highest level of sophistication its ever had.
Its beauty is unmatches in previous versions.
The biggest indicator is that they have told us since the start that the political system worked and you can always avoid civil war.
Then a month ago they said with this patch you can finally avoid civil war when otherwise it was unavoidable.
SO when it comes to rome 2, the business practice of selling an incomplete game is terrible to me.
But waiting for rome 2 for 1 more year and having nothing to play but shogun 2/fots (whcih at that point I had played to oblivion) seems like something I wouldnt want to do.
So my friends, do you think that this was the real release date? Have we been doing beta for CA for a whole year.
And if so would you have been willing to wait a whole nother year for this game to finally come out?

[PointOfViewGun]

Why are you asking a question that you claim to have only one answer?

Since start they said this:

What was the reasoning behind cutting the family tree system?It’s important to note that because a feature was in a previous TW doesn’t mean it’s automatically included in the next; some naturally make way for other features, others don’t fit the design or the period. In ROME II, the design intention was to make more of the politics system which would better suit the large variety of ruling systems e.g. party affiliations in the senate, rather than focus on strict nuclear family heredity. This would help create the legacy overview and sense of personal character that the family tree may have supplied in previous games.
It is certainly fair to say this feature didn’t turn out 100% as we would have wanted it and as part of the on-going game balancing and tweaking we are looking into this.
It is interesting to see how passionate people were about family trees though and that’s certainly something we will consider for future titles.

[Sun Jetzu]

Why are you asking a question that you claim to have only one answer?

Since start they said this:

I apologize, the other answer would be that the game was finished a year ago on release and that they were just trying to fix it till now. I dont think this is a believable answer lol
The question is do you think the release date was today and if so would you have waited another year for rome 2 to come out.

[Symphony]

This is a new and interesting discussion; certainly, not one that's been entirely talked to death and beyond for the last year or so. I'm sure this will be an enlightening, productive, and long-lived thread.

[PointOfViewGun]

I apologize, the other answer would be that the game was finished a year ago on release and that they were just trying to fix it till now. I dont think this is a believable answer lol
The question is do you think the release date was today and if so would you have waited another year for rome 2 to come out.

It's senseless to ask that question and than call the alternative unbelievable and unreal.

[Praetorian_BGX]

One year later RTW2 1.0

Finally out of beta.

[Sun Jetzu]

It's senseless to ask that question and than call the alternative unbelievable and unreal.

ughhh *twc..* Okay well then thanks for stopping bye

[Garensterz]

Hey guys. CA just released a new game, and it's Rome 2! For over nine...errr... ten years of waiting, they finally made a sequel for Rome Total War!


(Shameful Display)

[IlluminatiRex]

Merged with the Business Practice and Complaints thread.

[Symphony]

ughhh *twc..*

I'm sorry.

You're right, the initial launch was a beta and we were all unpaid testers (very clever, by the way...nobody's ever said or suggested THAT before), and the game's been unfinished up until now. Anybody who claims otherwise is just wrong.

That's clearly what you wanted; validation of your own pre-existing opinion, with no dissent. We good now? Can we move on?

[Sun Jetzu]

I'm sorry.

You're right, the initial launch was a beta and we were all unpaid testers (very clever, by the way...nobody's ever said or suggested THAT before), and the game's been unfinished up until now. Anybody who claims otherwise is just wrong.

That's clearly what you wanted; validation of your own pre-existing opinion, with no dissent. We good now? Can we move on?

again you guys are missing the question.
The question is "would you have waited a year more to get the finished game". That was it.

[Garensterz]

I'm sorry.

You're right, the initial launch was a beta and we were all unpaid testers (very clever, by the way...nobody's ever said or suggested THAT before), and the game's been unfinished up until now. Anybody who claims otherwise is just wrong.

That's clearly what you wanted; validation of your own pre-existing opinion, with no dissent. We good now? Can we move on?

Actually. Most of the people here at twc were saying that way back on it's first few months on release day (including me, I actually made a post on the humor thread about that then it got closed). My point is, we shouldn't let the gaming industry get used or even allow this kind of system where they release games half baked and let the customers do the testing (this should be illegal).

[Symphony]

Actually. Most of the people here at twc were saying that way back on it's first few months on release day (including me, I actually made a post on the humor thread about that then it got closed)

My sarcasm didn't sink in, then. I'm shocked.

[Garensterz]

My sarcasm didn't sink in, then. I'm shocked.

My second sentence still stands.

[pyj99]

I'm curious what is left of the point you made after you deal with this particular problem in your argumentation or after someone explains exactly why it's not a problem. Whether you like the game or not, whether you're just upset by the bad release, but have no issues with gameplay now, you can't disagree on usage being too low for the best selling TW to date. If, by some reason that escapes me, disagree, I can always point you to the fact that only 85% of players have more than 1 hour of gameplay (the steam achievement) or that most campaigns with any faction have been completed by less than 5% of players (and I have a feeling that people who like the game complete more than 1 campaign), or to the peak daily users statistics, etc. They're all available on steam. So, if you're in the "I like the game as it is now" category, at the very least you should be able to agree that the game manages to alienate a large part of it's community and it's playerbase, in general. Frankly, my position was always: if people like it, but the community doesn't, than CA made the right choice AND I don't have to be in the right demographics for everything. But I have more and more reasons to believe otherwise and the fact that there is no proper way for them to collect feedback, it's a really big issue IMHO. So if you're in that camp and you still think CA made the right call, then how do you comment low usage? It would be a much more interesting discussion than running in circles around personal preferences.

I am very glad you said that "if people like it, but the community doesn't, than CA made the right choice AND I don't have to be in the right demographics for everything"

because as has been proven many times TW:R2 is as successful in retaining its player base as TW:S2 - a game everybody hails as
What's more to the point is that it did that while adressing a larger market of less involved palyer so quite an achievement

So the "low usage statement" is at best a misinformed statement at worst an outright lie by TWC veterans that should know better

You can look at threads
here ; retention analysis based on peak usage and comparison with Shogun
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...ayer-Retention

There player estimates based on peak usage
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...ers&highlight=

And most recently here that gives a total of ~250k active players for TW:R2 after one year !
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...ing&highlight=


So yes you and some of the other "haters" are definitely a minority

Useful one tho to push CA to amend as long as you do not kill these forums with systematic posting

[pyj99]

Lets be real, sept 16th 2014 was the REAL launch date for Rome 2. Not Sept 3rd 2013.
My thoughts are the game is finally finished, it has the highest level of sophistication its ever had.
Its beauty is unmatches in previous versions.
The biggest indicator is that they have told us since the start that the political system worked and you can always avoid civil war.
Then a month ago they said with this patch you can finally avoid civil war when otherwise it was unavoidable.
SO when it comes to rome 2, the business practice of selling an incomplete game is terrible to me.
But waiting for rome 2 for 1 more year and having nothing to play but shogun 2/fots (whcih at that point I had played to oblivion) seems like something I wouldnt want to do.
So my friends, do you think that this was the real release date? Have we been doing beta for CA for a whole year.
And if so would you have been willing to wait a whole nother year for this game to finally come out?

Three points

1/ I finished campaigns without civil war pre-patch 14 - you just need to have a lot of client states

2/ Yes TW:R2 has been in quite a beta stage pre patch 14/15

3/ I would not have been willing to wait 2014 and play TATW for another year - so not happy with state at release but still prefer this situation to wait

4/ I think early-access program is the way to go for TW games