New Historical total war era - Total War: Three Kingdoms!

[PointOfViewGun]

I suppose I'm unfamiliar with the legal argument in that case. In most countries, game ratings aren't legally enforced and are just arbitrated by retailers, so I imagine Steam wouldn't care much in that case. I'm not sure how places like Germany verify age, since I believe they're one of the exceptions. The legal age quandaries probably wouldn't apply if it was just DLC offered for a nickle, but the finance argument would still be there.

It's kinda how TV shows can have swearing or nudity if you pay for the service like in Netflix, Hulu or HBO. Game of Thrones is Game of Thrones that is because you, well those that subscribe to HBO, pay for it. Otherwise, you wouldn't get swearing and nudity. Now, what if UK allows it but Germany doesn't? Should they charge in Germany and not in UK. People wouldn't like that either. So, all in all, 3$ is an acceptable compromise.

[AHumpierRogue]

Here's the thing though, you are trying to answer this logically. Logically, I get that to you it makes sense that they have to charge money for blood and can't just make it free. It made sense to me as well. But that isn't based in any fact, and fact is not always logical. IIRC It was debunked that you'd have to make blood content paid for by Darren, or someone else I forget who. If they made Blood simply a FLC that was a seperate download, it would be totally fine and legal. They are just charging money because they get away with it. As long as there is an age gate on the download(which steam provides) then you'd be all good. Even so, if the narrative that CA was forced to make it cost money in order to avoid age ratings really was true, then why could they not just charge a cent on it? It's plain and simple, SEGA and CA are selling us blood because they can get away with it.

[Kyffhäuser]

Who knew merchants were such skinflints?

[PointOfViewGun]

Here's the thing though, you are trying to answer this logically. Logically, I get that to you it makes sense that they have to charge money for blood and can't just make it free. It made sense to me as well. But that isn't based in any fact, and fact is not always logical. IIRC It was debunked that you'd have to make blood content paid for by Darren, or someone else I forget who. If they made Blood simply a FLC that was a seperate download, it would be totally fine and legal. They are just charging money because they get away with it. As long as there is an age gate on the download(which steam provides) then you'd be all good. Even so, if the narrative that CA was forced to make it cost money in order to avoid age ratings really was true, then why could they not just charge a cent on it? It's plain and simple, SEGA and CA are selling us blood because they can get away with it.

How did Darren debunk it? What I say is based on the same fact that just because you pay you can watch explicit content on video streaming services. Paid services don't have censoring, non-paid ones do. Even the non-paid services that live off advertising income has to censor. There is absolutely no logic or sense in how they could somehow do it if it was a separate download. The same would have been used by video streaming services as well. I already addressed why they won't charge a cent for it. An other member who wanted it to be free also argued how much the Blood DLC added to the game. Clearly, the value for that package is not one cent. They are selling you blood because they don't want the game to have a +18 rating and they make it cost 3$ because they spent resources on it and you find it valuable.

[PikeStance]

It's kinda how TV shows can have swearing or nudity if you pay for the service like in Netflix, Hulu or HBO. Game of Thrones is Game of Thrones that is because you, well those that subscribe to HBO, pay for it. Otherwise, you wouldn't get swearing and nudity. Now, what if UK allows it but Germany doesn't? Should they charge in Germany and not in UK. People wouldn't like that either. So, all in all, 3$ is an acceptable compromise.

Television is regulated by the FCC. The FCC is the one that enforces the rules. Cable, satellite and the internet does not fall under FCC regulations. HBO and other movie channels like it do follow the rating system. Anyway, it has absolutely nothing to do with advertising or money.

[PointOfViewGun]

Television is regulated by the FCC. The FCC is the one that enforces the rules. Cable, satellite and the internet does not fall under FCC regulations. HBO and other movie channels like it do follow the rating system. Anyway, it has absolutely nothing to do with advertising or money.

You do realize Total War is not sold only in USA? Yet, even in USA, you don't really need a legal regulatory system. Yes, ratings in USA are voluntary but there are various conditions. Many game shops will not sell unrated games. Many, if not all, retailers only stock games that have a ESRB rating. There is a good possibility that your game with gore will have a +17 rating which will likely stop many moms (likely not the dads though) from buying the game. Total War games historically go for a Teen rating but the Blood DLC is rated at Mature rating. Basically, if they keep the gore from the Blood DLC in the original game the game in its entirety will get an M rating. CA or SEGA can not simply put a T rating if they wish so. There might be an IP lawsuit somewhere there. If they accept the M rating then that can translate to many parents passing the game for their children between the ages of 13 and 17. If they go for an unrated game launch then that means many retailers in the USA will not stock the game or even sell it. So, maybe there is no government regulatory system for games in USA but there is a non-profit organizational regulatory system that vast majority of the market caters to.

[Mayer]

I find nudity in HBO shows excessive and distracting. Maybe americans need it as compensation for their double standard, but i would prefer chinese-style censorship of pornography to tighten the narrative.

[Anna_Gein]

The new delay is worrisome to say the least.

A game getting two consecutive delays including one so closed to release date is in general a very bad sign.

[PointOfViewGun]

The new delay is worrisome to say the least.

A game getting two consecutive delays including one so closed to release date is in general a very bad sign.

When was the first one?

[Abdülmecid I]

Not sure why we are still discussing the Blood myth. As Creative Assembly, ESRB and PEGI confirmed, the Blood pack distributed separately from the core game is sufficient. Whether the DLC is free or not is totally irrelevant and is not taken into consideration concerning the rating of either the "tent-pole" product or the DLC itself. The financial cost can only be justified, if someone, according to his personal criteria, considers the inclusion red particles and flying livers worthy of presumably around 1 million dollars.

When was the first one?

In the 6th of June, when the Cao Cao trailer was released. When Three Kingdoms was announced, Creative Assembly stated in twitter that the game was supposed to be released in autumn of 2018. I don't think that their initial goal was even remotely realistic and it certainly sounded bizarre. CA traditionally announces tent-pole games approximately 12-14 months before the release date (as it happened, for example, with Rome II), so March 2019 looked from the beginning as the strongest candidate. The second delay was not very surprising either, considering that we already are in mid-February and neither the "records mode" nor even the system requirements were made public. I suspect that they were in a dilemma over whether a delay would be beneficial or not, but the relatively negative feedback following the demos tipped the balance in favour of the prudent side. Pretty much everyone criticized the battles, from the aesthetics to the artificial intelligence, while the usual excuses ("early build, final product will look way, way better than this") didn't sound very convincing. They will probably concentrate on optimisation, polishing, implementing the "records mode" and some PR moves, like the replacement of these awkward unit cards.

As other people have said, the units are the same. BTW, I read/heard that an army can consist up to 6 Generals, not just three. 6x6=36, four less than 40 units. Personally, I would rather 3x12, but that's me.

No, the maximum will be 21 units, composed of three commanders with a retinue of 6 units each.

[PointOfViewGun]

Not sure why we are still discussing the Blood myth. As Creative Assembly, ESRB and PEGI confirmed, the Blood pack distributed separately from the core game is sufficient. Whether the DLC is free or not is totally irrelevant and is not taken into consideration concerning the rating of either the "tent-pole" product or the DLC itself. The financial cost can only be justified, if someone, according to his personal criteria, considers the inclusion red particles and flying livers worthy of presumably around 1 million dollars.

That statement have not moved beyond claim phase. I have seen nothing that suggests they could simply present it as an FLC and be done with it just because its a separate package. If that was the case ESRB could easily update the game's rating as the Blood FLC would be part of the core game. I have seen no statement from any of the mentioned parties that that wouldn't be the case or that it would totally fine to have it as an FLC while keeping the game T rating.

What's kinda funny though is that there is one group that wants to portray the Blood DLC as such an integral part of the game, hence, de facto justify the 3$ price tag. Then there is an other group, like you, that tries to undermine the value of the Blood DLC, describing new dismemberment and blood flow animations as including red particles and flying livers, in favor of implying that the Blood DLC should have been free.

[Mayer]

Medieval 2 also got ESRB Teen rating and PEGI rating of 16 despite having blood decals.


If i wanted to buy a adult content DLC, it should better be over-the-top brutal. Rivers of blood, wounded soldiers screaming in pain, civilians getting raped and slaughtered. That wouldn't be a very romantic portrayal of ancient battlefields, but it would be a reasonable realistic portrayal of the consequences of warfare.

[legate]

The game was originally slotted in for October/November 2018, which was stated back in July. However as observed at the time and since, this was an unrealistic target.

[zoner16]

Well, from the new stream, a couple more things to note:

• Full-stack open-field engagement between early-mid tier armies lasted 10 minutes without pausing.
• AI has gotten better about flanking. It seems to walk too much though. Cavalry was moving very slowly trying to maneuver.
• The AI tried to go through an undefended entrance during the farm battle, which was good, but the units it left holding down the other entrances were always archers (presumably because they were engaged first), which left them vulnerable and also just let the player reposition all the unengaged troops.
• Characters who leave a faction after recruiting that faction's unique units might bring that unit with them to another faction who can't recruit them.
• Units that take disband worthy losses are automatically set for remustering. They also keep their experience level. This seems really weird and also happened while in enemy territory. It may be a bug, but I intend to complain about it as much as possible until I get a straight answer.
• The AI tried to go through an undefended entrance during the farm battle, which was good, but the units it left holding down the other entrances were always archers (presumably because they were engaged first), which left them vulnerable and also just let the player reposition all the unengaged troops. The AI's attempts to be overly clever hurt it more than they help so long as it's not getting the details straight.

[AHumpierRogue]

TBH the first delay from fall to march never really felt like a delay, at least to me. We had literally seen nothing of the game for like 6 months and there wasn't even an announcement about it, or pre-orders for that matter, it just kind of happened. I hardly consider it a delay.

[Mhaedros]

Delays are good. Cheesy I know, but to quote Shigeru Miyamoto "A delayed game is eventually good, but a rushed game is forever bad".

While this is not necessarily true anymore in the age of patches and DLC, it's still true that a delayed game launches better than a rushed game does.

Also, anyone who knows anything about the games industry knows there's never been a single game made that wasn't delayed several times, CA just made the mistake of talking about intended release dates way too early.

[PikeStance]

You do realize Total War is not sold only in USA? Yet, even in USA, you don't really need a legal regulatory system. Yes, ratings in USA are voluntary but there are various conditions. Many game shops will not sell unrated games. Many, if not all, retailers only stock games that have a ESRB rating. There is a good possibility that your game with gore will have a +17 rating which will likely stop many moms (likely not the dads though) from buying the game. Total War games historically go for a Teen rating but the Blood DLC is rated at Mature rating. Basically, if they keep the gore from the Blood DLC in the original game the game in its entirety will get an M rating. CA or SEGA can not simply put a T rating if they wish so. There might be an IP lawsuit somewhere there. If they accept the M rating then that can translate to many parents passing the game for their children between the ages of 13 and 17. If they go for an unrated game launch then that means many retailers in the USA will not stock the game or even sell it. So, maybe there is no government regulatory system for games in USA but there is a non-profit organizational regulatory system that vast majority of the market caters to.

I can only remark about the US.
Retailers would not have any problem selling an unrated game. In the US, at least, that is not grounds for a lawsuit.

No, the maximum will be 21 units, composed of three commanders with a retinue of 6 units each.

I supposed it was a wishful thinker by the person that stated it. I wonder if the number of units is something that can be modded.


________________________

In the interview with the developers, they referred to the development of the game have been very long. My guess is that it took them much longer to change the way the game is played (instead of factions with leaders, leaders that are factions and development of the "hero." concept. I supposed we could give them credit for learning their lesson with ETW and not push something out that is half done.

[PointOfViewGun]

I can only remark about the US.
Retailers would not have any problem selling an unrated game. In the US, at least, that is not grounds for a lawsuit.

I did not say it as a point of legality. It's a matter of store policy not to stock unrated games according to ESRB. GameSpot stores, for example, do enforce the ESRB rating system. The legality point was made about CA or SEGA giving their games T rating by themselves which would violate ESRB's intellectual property.

[PikeStance]

I did not say it as a point of legality. It's a matter of store policy not to stock unrated games according to ESRB. GameSpot stores, for example, do enforce the ESRB rating system. The legality point was made about CA or SEGA giving their games T rating by themselves which would violate ESRB's intellectual property.

I found myself on the ESRB website.

This is the process. it doesn't sound like the producer of the product has much of choice what label is placed on the game.
The store policy you quoted dealt with the selling of the games to minor that carries a label above the certain level.
I am not sure a product can be unrated unless it is published by an independent publisher which most likely would not have distribution in large retailing chains.

This is becoming an education over a moot point since the blood and gore are produced and sold separately. Personally, I couldn't care less. I am not into "blood sport" and think the DLCs are a waste of money.

[PointOfViewGun]

I found myself on the ESRB website.

This is the process. it doesn't sound like the producer of the product has much of choice what label is placed on the game.
The store policy you quoted dealt with the selling of the games to minor that carries a label above the certain level.
I am not sure a product can be unrated unless it is published by an independent publisher which most likely would not have distribution in large retailing chains.

This is becoming an education over a moot point since the blood and gore are produced and sold separately. Personally, I couldn't care less. I am not into "blood sport" and think the DLCs are a waste of money.

I like to provide information based on the context of what the post I respond to talk about and address them accordingly. ESRB does indeed have a power over games published in the USA, and CA or Sega would be unable to show a rating of T while having the Blood DLC part of their main game without risking an IP lawsuit. Hence, retailers would indeed have a problem with selling an unrated game contrary to what you suggested earlier. I'm glad this was educative for you.