Results time! What are your thoughts?

[Fredrin]

Not too long ago I put together a quick survey to gather opinion about Attila and Rome 2. It's still available here if you haven't had a chance to fill it out yet.

Big thanks to all the 530 people who took part (updated 30th Dec 2014)

But now for the interesting part....

Read the results here


For those who don't want to go through the results individually, here is a run-down of the main trends :

- Only a QUARTER of people intend to pre-order Attila, down from TWO THIRDS who pre-ordered Rome 2.

- Of the people who don't pre-order, roughly half say they are either unlikely or very unlikely to actually buy the Viking DLC after release.

- Despite an overall positive interest in the content of the Viking Culture Pack, a huge majority believe the asking price of £5.99 is bad value, with less than one in 10 people saying it is in any way good value.

- Of those who aren't neutral on the subject, there were four times as many people less likely to buy Attila as a result of the DLC being announced.

- People's attitude towards CA/SEGA has also become markedly worse since the DLC was announced, with only 14 and 11 people respectively out of the 375 saying that their attitude was improved. 69 (for CA) and 103 (for SEGA) said it was "Much Worse"

It was not all bad news though. Overall people are optimistic about the coming release with over a third saying their general attitude is "good".

- The community was also thrilled by the news of the new gameplay features announced for Attila, with only 27 people saying they were in any was dissatisfied and almost 75% saying they were either satisfied or very satisfied.

- In one of the starkest results in the survey, an overwhelming majority believe these features should be implemented in Rome 2, over half strongly agreeing and only 7% in any way disagreeing.


- There also appears to be a strong financial incentive for CA to do this as well over half of people would consider buying existing Rome 2 DLC if this was to happen, a third strongly considering.

- The most clear trend was observed when people were asked if CA should improve moddability of the game, with nearly two thirds strongly agreeing


- On the whole, people would like to see the Huns playable at release and believe that around the £20 mark is an acceptable price, though the bulk of people waiting for a discount will be holding out for one around 60-70% off.

- On the survey itself, three quarters think they're interesting and would like to see more in the future, with only 15 actively saying otherwise. But the jury is definitely out on whether CA find these things helpful and will use the feedback to improve their games.

Thanks for reading!

[Fredrin]

NB for the question asking you to rank what you'd like to see in future DLC content (displayed in a slightly awkward graph halfway through) here is the order for clarity's sake:

1. Campaign with extra gameplay features (runaway winner with about 66% choosing this as number 1)
2. Campaign content without extra features
3. Culture packs, playable factions
4. Unit Packs
5. Cosmetic DLC such as blood and gore

[kerrfox]

...As a reward to the person who can come up the most insightful analysis of what these figures mean, I will be giving away one whole shiny piece of rep! So go ahead and dissect at will...

The people have spoken!

[Huberto]

Originally Posted by Tiberius Crackus

...As a reward to the person who can come up the most insightful analysis of what these figures mean, I will be giving away one whole shiny piece of rep! So go ahead and dissect at will...

Hope springs eternal?

[Veah]

Some quick conclusions:

1- Players have not forget the hype of Rome II and will wait to buy Attila until reviews came out (but they do want to buy it if it has an acceptable quality)




2- Sega will sold Vikings DLC to about 20% of players, but at the cost of worsening the attitude of nearly 50% of them.




3- Two things that every guy in this forum knows but CA hasn't noticed yet.

[Fredrin]

I've updated the OP with a summary of the results

[PointOfViewGun]

What are the proper scores that each game got in the end?

[Fredrin]

What are the proper scores that each game got in the end?

The scores are as follows:

Shogun I - 7
Medieval I - 7.6
Rome I - 8.5
Medieval II - 8.5
Empire - 6
Napoleon - 7.1
Shogun 2 - 8.1
Rome II - 5.8
Attila (expected) - 7

[PointOfViewGun]

The scores are as follows:

Shogun I - 7
Medieval I - 7.6
Rome I - 8.5
Medieval II - 8.5
Empire - 6
Napoleon - 7.1
Shogun 2 - 8.1
Rome II - 5.8
Attila (expected) - 7

Well, scrap the survey. The results are useless then.

[Garensterz]

Well, scrap the survey. The results are useless then.

Why? Because Rome 2 didn't get a perfect 10?



Now about the survey. The results on question 14 still baffles me though, this is obviously trolling. I hope the survey also asks why to disagree with that question, so I would understand why someone would disagree.

[Fredrin]

Well, scrap the survey. The results are useless then.

Errrrr, care to elaborate?

[PointOfViewGun]

Errrrr, care to elaborate?

Medieval II getting an extremely high mark compared to Rome II and pretty much all others save Rome I should have been quite impossible. This shows how inaccurate people's perceptions can be. You can certainly argue that Medieval II was better than Rome II but it's incredible that people would put it so highly above all else and Rome II despite having a very bad launch. The CTDs alone was making Medieval II unplayable for a lot of times. Amazing how people forget that.

[Butan]

Well, scrap the survey. The results are useless then.

After or before we appeal to the majority if we should scrap your useful posts?
You can criticize the results, while respecting the work of the man who did the mini-survey and the voters.

[Cyrene]

wait a sec, 222 people chose "No" in the first question, the second question is only for theses 222 people, right? but what we got is 282, that means 60 people didn't vote "no" in the first question but they decided to also vote in the second.

[Fredrin]

wait a sec, 222 people chose "No" in the first question, the second question is only for theses 222 people, right? but what we got is 282, that means 60 people didn't vote "no" in the first question but they decided to also vote in the second.

Irritating, but true. I guess it's reasonable to take off 60 votes from the "yes" column in Q.2 then.

[Lionheart11]

Empire -6, Rome 2 -5.8, no way ,Empire craps all over R2.

[Tripledot]

Medieval 2 was a pretty mediocre game. It was only good because of the dedicated modding community.

[LewisVee]

How CA don't look at this and think "well maybe we need change" baffles me.

An an unhappy fan base is not what you want and it's getting worse and worse.

[Fredrin]

How CA don't look at this and think "well maybe we need change" baffles me.

An an unhappy fan base is not what you want and it's getting worse and worse.

I hate to say it, but their entire approach to this community survey has reeked of a company in denial.

I make every effort both in announcing it, then in constructing the questions to make the whole initiative as unbiased as possible.

First they tell me I can't directly link to an external survey on their forums.

Then they tell me I can't even mention which forums people can go to have their results logged.

All this is being mediated by three separate moderators who, from the sound of it, were petitioning on my behalf to allow it to go ahead in some form. Every step of the way, the message from CA was a clear "No".

To top it all off, I tried posting the results there yesterday, only to be told that it wasn't allowed because the results mostly came from other forums. Of course they have! Because every effort was made to hush it up on their forums!

Honestly, what does that tell you about a company when they actively try and suppress a community exercise that is trying to establish some kind of consensus?

[Cope]

I hate to say it, but their entire approach to this community survey has reeked of a company in denial.

I make every effort both in announcing it, then in constructing the questions to make the whole initiative as unbiased as possible.

First they tell me I can't directly link to an external survey on their forums.

Then they tell me I can't even mention which forums people can go to have their results logged.

All this is being mediated by three separate moderators who, from the sound of it, were petitioning on my behalf to allow it to go ahead in some form. Every step of the way, the message from CA was a clear "No".

To top it all off, I tried posting the results there yesterday, only to be told that it wasn't allowed because the results mostly came from other forums. Of course they have! Because every effort was made to hush it up on their forums!

Honestly, what does that tell you about a company when they actively try and suppress a community exercise that is trying to establish some kind of consensus?

What's new? With the exception of a few months after Rome II's release, that forum has always been a place of self-congratulation where TW hyper fans gather to inexplicably defend everything that CA do. It is a place of baron discussion where those who point out even blatant faults with the game(s) are met with hostility and their complaints are swept under the carpet.

The thing is, CA know what people want, its just that they can't deliver it. Therefore they obviously see no point in being publicly forced to recognize fan requests that they know they are going to be unable to provide.

They know the engine for Rome II is trash.
They know that most fans hate Day One DLC.
They know that virtually everyone wants more modding capabilities.

Problem is they can't do anything about any of that because its too much of a financial risk for them, and, no doubt SEGA is cracking the DLC whip on CA because, as is the case with most publishers, they couldn't care less about appeasing consumers so long as they keep on seeing profits.