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

[PointOfViewGun]

Of course it's a product, but with the disastrous release of Rome 2 TW and those who pre-order was given the Greek faction pack DLC (I forgot what it's called as I don't play R2TW anymore) R2TW was kind of a hyped game.
So what happen, when starting a new campaign? One who had a monster PC couldn't play the game and I bet some of those people who pre-order only did that just to get a Day One DLC for free had a monster PC.
So, that's why some people despise the "get a free DLC, if one pre-order a game" commercial strategy and unfortunately CA seems to use that kind of a selling strategy.

I did pre-order Rome II and played it on a ASUS N series laptop. It's a good laptop but not a beast. I'm not sure what you are trying to argue there.

[♔Greek Strategos♔]

Why? It's a product. It's common sense to incentivize early adoption. If they didn't do that people would be whining how they got to buy the game first and didn't get anything for it.

I agree. It is marketing 101.
Either they entice you with a DLC and/ or discount. The alternative is the included DLC is not available for purchase until much later.
Based on the feedback by early access players, it seemed to be a DLC properly fleshed out. Did CA learn from their R2 release?

Strongly (but respectfully) disagree. Day one DLC's have nothing to do with pre-order prizes for loyal fans etc since they SHOULD be in the base game from the start. It's a very bad policy and it offers nothing to the consumers. Just a money grab. They deliberately present semi-finished products to grab our money with DLC. Maybe you're ok with that, but I'm not. FYI I already have the game (for free) and early access, so I have watched the game's development from within and I can assure you they have cutted out many base game features, just to add them back as DLCs. Everybody knows about that. it's not a secret

But it's not about money...More like an ethical thing, at least for me, plus a ''common policy'' isn't ofc ethical or even logical (most of the time).

I did pre-order Rome II and played it on a ASUS N series laptop. It's a good laptop but not a beast. I'm not sure what you are trying to argue there.

Leo is probably talking about Rome's 2 Tech issues since Day 1. For example, many people with beastly pcs were experiencing issues or same performance with med and low level pcs and that, of course, was unacceptable and cause by Rome's 2 very bad optimizations. Anti Aliasing wasn't working until their latest big patch, yeah a core game fix after 5 yrs. Admittedly Attila was (still is) a worse optimization example and Warhammer's much-promised Directx12 performance is just disastrous. But that's another story

[Leonardo]

I am, indeed, talking about the release of Rome 2 TW and here I reposted almost every patch notes I could find on the official TW site.

I also reposted, which I forgot I did that, a few patch notes for Atilla.

http://www.theassimilationlab.com/fo...for-attila-tw/

[PointOfViewGun]

Strongly disagree. Day one DLC's have nothing to do with pre-order prizes for loyal fans etc since they SHOULD be in the base game from the start. It's a very bad policy and it offers nothing to the consumers. Just a money grab. They deliberately present semi-finished products to grab our money with DLC. Maybe you're ok with that, but I'm not. FYI I already have the game (for free) and early access, so I have watched the game's development from within and I can assure you they have cutted out many base game features, just to add them back as DLCs. Everybody knows about that. it's not a secret

But it's not about money...More like an ethical thing, at least for me, plus a ''common policy'' isn't ofc ethical or even logical (most of the time).

Only the publisher gets to decide what's in the base game or not. You're not entitled to it. You may think you own the code, but you don't Software doesn't work the way you think it does. This is not really a case of you not being OK with their DLC policy. It's about proper understanding of how products work. What they present on launch is the finished product whether you like it or not. They might have created a bad product. That's for sure, but the quality of the product doesn't necessarily dictate whether the product is finished or not. It's mostly dependent on what they claim the product is. Do they claim that the Yellow Turban faction is part of the base game? No. So, them selling the product without that faction is not them selling an unfinished product. Nothing in that pre-order DLC policy makes the practice unethical. Let's not whore around big words like that.

They have never cut game features to sell them as DLCs before as well. Factions are not game features. They sell content.

Leo is probably talking about Rome's 2 Tech issues since Day 1. For example, many people with beastly pcs were experiencing issues or same performance with med and low level pcs and that, of course, was unacceptable and cause by Rome's 2 very bad optimizations. Anti Aliasing wasn't working until their latest big patch, yeah a core game fix after 5 yrs. Admittedly Attila was (still is) a worse optimization example and Warhammer's much promised Directx12 performance is just disastrous. But that's another story

And how does that tie to having a pre-order bonus DLC?

[♔Greek Strategos♔]

Only the publisher gets to decide what's in the base game or not. You're not entitled to it. You may think you own the code, but you don't Software doesn't work the way you think it does. This is not really a case of you not being OK with their DLC policy. It's about proper understanding of how products work. What they present on launch is the finished product whether you like it or not. They might have created a bad product. That's for sure, but the quality of the product doesn't necessarily dictate whether the product is finished or not. It's mostly dependent on what they claim the product is. Do they claim that the Yellow Turban faction is part of the base game? No. So, them selling the product without that faction is not them selling an unfinished product. Nothing in that pre-order DLC policy makes the practice unethical. Let's not whore around big words like that.

They have never cut game features to sell them as DLCs before as well. Factions are not game features. They sell content.

Not sure why you're trying to patronize me, but please spare the Gaming Industry lessons, I'm into it for over 20yrs and I was (still am partly) much closer to CA's gaming development than you think
Plus, you clearly don't know about them cutting and reselling features, ask people who worked with them as BETA testers and former Devs I can't openly talk about such things (NDA) but you can find more info pretty much everywhere. If you want to give it a go.

Nothing in that pre-order DLC policy makes the practice unethical. Let's not whore around big words like that.

You're probably the only person who believes that. Also, it's my opinion and I find pre-order DLC policy unethical, like many others actually. If you don't, that's fine by me and I'm not trying to proselytize you. You're not talking to a kid though, I know what words I'm using.

And how does that tie to having a pre-order bonus DLC?

Ask Leo

[PointOfViewGun]

Not sure why you're trying to patronize me, but please spare the Gaming Industry lessons, I'm into it for over 20yrs and I was (still am partly) much closer to CA's gaming development than you think
Plus, you clearly don't know about them cutting and reselling features, ask people who worked with them as BETA testers and former Devs I can't openly talk about such things (NDA) but you can find more info pretty much everywhere. If you want to give it a go.

Right, there are plenty of evidence but I can't talk about it... No NDA stops you from refuting what I said by pointing out at a feature that they sold as part of a DLC. Your entire response seems to be dependent on claiming that you know better without actually exhibiting how so.

You're probably the only person who believes that. Also, it's my opinion and I find pre-order DLC policy unethical, like many others actually. If you don't, that's fine by me.

Sure, it can be your opinion, but for it to have merit I'd expect you to ground it. You haven't provided any argument on why it is so.

Ask Leo

I kinda did. You jumped in.

[Leonardo]

I kinda did. You jumped in.

No, you did not ask me because you quoted GS and not me. If you had posted like "@Leonardo: And how does that tie to having a pre-order bonus DLC?" then you have indeed asked me.

Anyway, I think this is getting a little off topic, so let us go back and be on topic. Shall we?

[PointOfViewGun]

No, you did not ask me because you quoted GS and not me. If you had posted like "@Leonardo: And how does that tie to having a pre-order bonus DLC?" then you have indeed asked me.
Anyway, I think this is getting a little off topic, so let us go back and be on topic. Shall we?

I did pre-order Rome II and played it on a ASUS N series laptop. It's a good laptop but not a beast. I'm not sure what you are trying to argue there.

Normally, one would proceed to clarify what you were trying to argue there. But, after pointing out that I asked it explicitly to someone else you didn't proceed. If you wanna get back on topic you could try to substantiate your post and explain what it had to do with pre-order bonus DLCs.

[♔Greek Strategos♔]

Right, there are plenty of evidence but I can't talk about it... No NDA stops you from refuting what I said by pointing out at a feature that they sold as part of a DLC. Your entire response seems to be dependent on claiming that you know better without actually exhibiting how so.

Well, NDA actually stops me from telling you details for removed content. I wasn't even talking only about Red Turban DLC btw, but also for the following ones. You'll hear pretty soon about them.
I can give you an example from Rome 2 atm (no NDA), they have locked desert factions and recently made them a DLC. Is that a valid argument? dozens of other features as well were removed from the base game back in 2013, some of them (not all) became DLC later
Btw factions are base game content and if you can release them as playable from Day 1 but you don't and you're turning them to DLC after 5 yrs instead of a free update, that's unethical and greedy.
You can also search for the Modder's conference in London back in the day and you'll find more info about features that were removed from the base game (Rome 2) and later released as a separate game (Attila). It's not a policy that only CA follows, many other companies are in favor of cutting and reselling. Like Paradox and their latest Imperator empty release.

Sure, it can be your opinion, but for it to have merit I'd expect you to ground it. You haven't provided any argument on why it is so.

Well, I had. Let's do it again though when a feature-content is already written-created a long time before the actual release, but it's locked as a DLC just to grab our money or for extra pre-orders that's highly unethical for me and for others. You can check multiple gaming forums, steam and public platforms to see how people feel about it. I can guarantee you'll see features in the future DLCs that will look like they should have been in the game from the start. We'll be here to discuss it if you like...Quite soon

I kinda did. You jumped in.

My apologies if that bothered you. I was just trying to help with Leo's train of thought since this is a public thread, not a private conversation.

Anyway, this thread isn't only about DLC and CA's policy...we should focus on more important matters, like the actual game's state and performance before release. I can talk freely about that (no NDA) also about the game's tech side and suggested hardware settings etc if you're interested just ask, I'm always available
I haven't posted in this thread to argue just for argument's sake, sharing info and constructive criticism is my main goal.

[PointOfViewGun]

Well, NDA actually stops me from telling you details for removed content. I wasn't even talking only about Red Turban DLC btw, but also for the following ones. You'll hear pretty soon about them.
I can give you an example from Rome 2 atm (no NDA), they have locked desert factions and recently made them a DLC. Is that a valid argument? dozens of other features as well were removed from the base game back in 2013, some of them (not all) became DLC later
Btw factions are base game content and if you can release them as playable from Day 1 but you don't and you're turning them to DLC after 5 yrs instead of a free update, that's unethical and greedy.
You can also search for the Modder's conference in London back in the day and you'll find more info about features that were removed from the base game (Rome 2) and later released as a separate game (Attila). It's not a policy that only CA follows, many other companies are in favor of cutting and reselling. Like Paradox and their latest Imperator empty release.

I asked for features that they sold as part of DLCs. You keep talking about factions, hence, content. Do you know the difference between the two?
As I said, the publisher decides what the base game is. You claiming that day 1 DLCs are cut base game content doesn't mean anything. You don't get to decide that.

Well, I had. Let's do it again though when a feature-content is already written-created a long time before the actual release, but it's locked as a DLC just to grab our money or for extra pre-orders that's highly unethical for me and for others. You can check multiple gaming forums, steam and public platforms to see how people feel about it. I can guarantee you'll see features in the future DLCs that will look like they should have been in the game from the start. We'll be here to discuss it if you like...Quite soon

Again, you're not going beyond a claim. Why is it unethical? It shouldn't be this hard to come with a reasoning.

My apologies if that bothered you. I was just trying to help with Leo's train of thought since this is a public thread, not a private conversation.

It sort of does bother me that other people jump into a conversation and don't bother to consider what's being said.

[zoner16]

Well, NDA actually stops me from telling you details for removed content. I wasn't even talking only about Red Turban DLC btw, but also for the following ones. You'll hear pretty soon about them.
I can give you an example from Rome 2 atm (no NDA), they have locked desert factions and recently made them a DLC. Is that a valid argument? dozens of other features as well were removed from the base game back in 2013, some of them (not all) became DLC later
Btw factions are base game content and if you can release them as playable from Day 1 but you don't and you're turning them to DLC after 5 yrs instead of a free update, that's unethical and greedy.
You can also search for the Modder's conference in London back in the day and you'll find more info about features that were removed from the base game (Rome 2) and later released as a separate game (Attila). It's not a policy that only CA follows, many other companies are in favor of cutting and reselling. Like Paradox and their latest Imperator empty release.

I object to Day 1 DLC primarily because it's usually promoting a business practice which I feel is inherently manipulative and deceitful (pre-ordering), but I can't say I care much about how the production schedule matches the release one. If CA want to sell me a game that doesn't have everything that they've worked on in it, fine, but what's in there still better look like its worth the selling price, otherwise I'm not buying. If the later DLCs were technically done before the release date, I also don't really care that much. It's CA's business how they run their ship, and also their business to make the case to me that their products are worth my money. CA's DLC have usually been things that I can play the base game just fine without, unlike Paradox, so I've never felt that the game is being held hostage by DLC.

Also, were the factions as they had been developed Day 1 in the same state as they were when released 5 years later? Were all the units, the faction mechanics, and the start state all the same? Were the features that were removed from Rome 2 things that were actually done, finished, and working? Or were they ideas that were being iterated on and never actually integrated or even completed? There's a difference between a feature "existing" and a feature actually being usable. The development process often leaves a lot of artifacts of things that aren't done yet, were killed off, or aren't meant to be used in the game.

[samuraixkan]

We'll be getting Blood DLC on launch it seems

[♔Greek Strategos♔]

I asked for features that they sold as part of DLCs. You keep talking about factions, hence, content. Do you know the difference between the two?
As I said, the publisher decides what the base game is. You claiming that day 1 DLCs are cut base game content doesn't mean anything. You don't get to decide that.

Well, to be honest, I don't care much if my ''claim'' means something to you. It's my POV for Day 1 DLC policy and if you don't agree, you can move along (freely ofc) and talk about something else.

I'm paying for the best product they could make (a complete product)and as a client I have standards. If you don't that's your problem. Ofc it's their decision to make and ofc it's my right to criticize them. I never said it's my call what goes in and what goes out.

I talked about factions as a widely known DLC example. Rome's 2 Greek states a pre-ordered DLC (another example). A feature is practically content. I can easily design a feature and then release it as free content or paid DLC. Do you want more examples? just check my previous posts and search about how empty Rome 2 was on release and that because they had a fully planned DLC schedule like they already have for 3K. The complete Attila game was actually a Rome 2 expansion (every modder and active user knows that) but it was sold separately as a new overpriced game, instead of a DLC or expansion (look Rise-Fall of Samurai for Shogun 2).

I can't google things for you or visit multiple gaming forums to learn more. I believe you can do it easily. Also, don't forget to check the London Modding Conference about Rome 2 where more than half of the things we're promised (as free content) were never delivered and were released as a new game instead. As for the features, you have asked, you can google them as well.

About 3K specifically, I can't say much atm and even after it's release I won't be in liberty to discuss disclosed development aspects I have seen. I can share my opinion and experience with the game ofc.

Anyway, I'm not sure why you keep arguing about pre-ordered DLC policy and the removal of base game content to boost future profits, since they're widely hated practices, for most gamers in every game and genre. Every major company does it or did it at some point. Are we gonna talk about how greedy companies are? I really don't want to waste more time here.

Again, you're not going beyond a claim. Why is it unethical? It shouldn't be this hard to come with a reasoning.

I have already explained my POV twice. I have seen many early access CA titles and since I'm not blind I know when a final version is complete or they have removed various features (I have already seen). Have you ever talked to a beta tester or an ex-developer? If you haven't, you should and you'll see that's a standard procedure for them. If you can't get it then I'm really sorry.

Again, please spare me the gaming industry lessons and save your patronization for someone else, because I'm not buying it

It sort of does bother me that other people jump into a conversation and don't bother to consider what's being said.

It shouldn't though, as I said it's a public thread and you have no authority to decide who's posting and why. Last time I checked you're not a moderator or Staffer. If you can't stand posts from other people, just take a deep breath, scroll down and have a coffee.
Plus I just explained to you Leo's reasoning, not mine. I'm not Leo though and you can't argue with him about his post and if you feel it's offtopic just press the report button.

That's all. I'm sorry but I have better things to do than explaining the same thing over and over or arguing without any meaningful reason.

Have a nice day

I object to Day 1 DLC primarily because it's usually promoting a business practice which I feel is inherently manipulative and deceitful (pre-ordering), but I can't say I care much about how the production schedule matches the release one. If CA want to sell me a game that doesn't have everything that they've worked on in it, fine, but what's in there still better look like its worth the selling price, otherwise I'm not buying. If the later DLCs were technically done before the release date, I also don't really care that much. It's CA's business how they run their ship, and also their business to make the case to me that their products are worth my money. CA's DLC have usually been things that I can play the base game just fine without, unlike Paradox, so I've never felt that the game is being held hostage by DLC.

Agreed

Also, were the factions as they had been developed Day 1 in the same state as they were when released 5 years later? Were all the units, the faction mechanics, and the start state all the same? Were the features that were removed from Rome 2 things that were actually done, finished, and working? Or were they ideas that were being iterated on and never actually integrated or even completed? There's a difference between a feature "existing" and a feature actually being usable. The development process often leaves a lot of artifacts of things that aren't done yet, were killed off, or aren't meant to be used in the game.

Well, if they can release it on Day 1 as DLC, it surely could have been in the base game for free. Now about the features, not all ofc but most of them were chopped down just for future profit and to reduce developing time, costs, deadlines, etc you know the drill
A very good friend of mine who was until recently an employee and lead DLC designer for the company (he works for Sony VR now btw) told me many things about their DLC policies which I already addressed in my previous posts (briefly) and I have seen many things myself, but ofc I can't talk about everything here, because that would be offtopic and because that part of their development team ''officially'' doesn't exist

[PointOfViewGun]

Well, to be honest, I don't care much if my ''claim'' means something to you. It's my POV for Day 1 DLC policy and if you don't agree, you can move along (freely ofc) and talk about something else.

I'm paying for the best product they could make (a complete product)and as a client I have standards. If youd don't that's your problem. Ofc it's their decision to make and ofc it's my right to criticize them. I never said it's my call what goes in and what goes out. I talked about factions as a widely known dlc example. Rome's 2 Greek states a pre ordered dlc (another example). A feature is practically content. I already gave you examples concerning Rome 2 and Attila. You haven't answered to them last time I checked. I can easily design a feature and then release it as free content or paid DLC. You want more examples? just check my previous posts ans search about how empty Rome 2 was on release and that because they had a fully planned DLC scedule like they already have for 3K. The complete Attila game was actually a Rome 2 expansion (every modder and active user knows that) but it was sold separately as a new overpriced game, instead of a DLC or expansion. (look Rise-Fall of Samurai for Shogun 2). I can't google things for you or visit multiple gaming forums to learn more. I believe you can do it easily. Also don't forget to check the London Modding Conference about Rome 2 where more than half of the thnings we're promised (as free content) were never delivered and were released as a new game instead.

Anyway, I'm not sure why you keep arguing about pre-ordered DLC policy, since it's a widely hated practice for most gamers in every game and genre. Are we gonna talk about how greedy companies are? I really don't want to waste more time here. Really.

I have already explained my POV twice. If you can't get, I'm really sorry, but I have better things to do than explaining the same thing over and over. Again, please spare me the gaming industry lessons and save your ironical tone and patronization for someone else, because I'm not buying it

It shouldn't though, as I said it's a public thread and you have no authority to decide who's posting and why. Last time I checked you're not a moderator or Staffer. If you can't stand posts from other people, just take a deep breath, scroll down and have a coffee.
Plus I just explained to you Leo's reasoning, not mine. I'm not Leo though and you can't argue with him about his post and if you feel it's offtopic just press the report button.

Have a nice day

Sigh... A feature is not content. When they ever introduced a feature they gave it for free. They only sold DLC that contained new factions, units or campaigns. You never had to pay extra to have more features in a base game. All you have to prove me wrong is to name a single feature.

As I said, your position doesn't go beyond making claims. It's OK to have opinions, but it's also my opinion that opinions that have no basis or when you fail to demonstrate how and why, have no merit. Hence, I didn't ask for your point of view. I asked you to substantiate why it was unethical. Why is it immoral to have publishers market DLC for extra content? You attempted to change the reality by defining the game yourself when you had no right to.

It's hilarious how you try to spin your involvement with Leonardo's post. You say you don't have to post within the context of a conversation when you jump in but you also acknowledge that you tried to explain Leonardo's reasoning.

All in all, your position on pre-order DLCs is like whining because when you buy a car they offer you a bunch of packages to upgrade your car...

[♔Greek Strategos♔]

Sigh... A feature is not content. When they ever introduced a feature they gave it for free. They only sold DLC that contained new factions, units or campaigns. You never had to pay extra to have more features in a base game. All you have to prove me wrong is to name a single feature.

As I said, your position doesn't go beyond making claims. It's OK to have opinions, but it's also my opinion that opinions that have no basis or when you fail to demonstrate how and why have no merit. Hence, I didn't ask for your point of view. I asked you to substantiate why it was unethical. Why is it immoral to have publishers market DLC for extra content? You attempted to change the reality by defining the game yourself when you had no right to.

Wrong, I have every right because I have seen the early access stages of Rome 2 for example (you haven't) and the final product. So I can clearly judge it.
Many of these units, factions you mentioned should have been in the base game, since they were available as Day 1 DLC (like the Pre Ordered Greek City States for Rome 2) and because the were developed before the release.It's the last time I'm saying this. For God's sake man. that's the juice

Again you can search our forums and the official ones for literally hundreds of similar threads (missing features and content) so feel free.

Now for 3K, I have also early access and as I said I'll talk more about it after it's release.

If you're unable to press the search button on a single Forum, I don't expect you to understand my points.

It's hilarious how you try to spin your involvement with Leonardo's post. You say you don't have to post within the context of a conversation when you jump in but you also acknowledge that you tried to explain Leonardo's reasoning.

Why are we even talking about another user? I just tried to explain his post's reasoning. Get over it. I think I have already suggested what you can do if a user's post annoys you

All in all, your position on pre-order DLC is like whining because when you buy a car they offer you a bunch of packages to upgrade your car...

Very unfortunate example. Also since when criticism is whining? I mean come on.

Again, if you haven't seen my last entry.

That's all. I'm sorry but I have better things to do than explaining the same thing over and over or arguing without any meaningful reason.

Have a nice day

Plus let's stay on topic. If there is something you want to discuss about 3K feel free. This is not a CA's DLC policy thread.

[zoner16]

Well, if they can release it on Day 1 as DLC, it surely could have been in the base game for free. Now about the features, not all ofc but most of them were chopped down just for future profit and to reduce developing time, costs, deadlines, etc you know the drill
A very good friend of mine who was until recently an employee and lead DLC designer for the company (he works for Sony VR now btw) told me many things about their DLC policies which I already addressed in my previous posts (briefly) and I have seen many things myself, but ofc I can't talk about everything here, because that would be offtopic and because that part of their development team ''officially'' doesn't exist

To be honest, that just sounds like the modern tech dev process. You spin up a bunch of feature ideas, things progress, production/integration guys come by and look at what's where and then either tell you to cut it, shelve it, or give it to someone else. Sometimes it's budget, sometimes its time, sometimes its people. Sometimes it just makes too much business sense to package it separately. Hell, being the guy who tells people to nix things or put them on hold for a different release is my job some days.

As long as the thing you deliver is the thing you told people who gave you money for delivery, what happens behind the scenes doesn't matter. The only time you get in trouble (and rightfully so) is when the product doesn't work as advertised without your addons or when you accept money for features you didn't ship. I get the frustration when it feels like the base game could've been more if they had put the DLC in it, but that applies to most things that have extra parts that I pay for, like when Chipotle charges me extra for guacamole. No its not great, but it's not unethical. My burrito bowl is still exactly what I was expecting when I paid for it.

To bring things back around to the topic, the Yellow Turban stuff doesn't feel like something that the game requires in order to perform as advertised. I honestly wouldn't have expected the Yellow Turbans to be in the game outside maybe a couple of events or units. So while I dislike the pre-order system, I don't think it was wrong for them to sell it as DLC, regardless of when they started developing it.

[♔Greek Strategos♔]

To be honest, that just sounds like the modern tech dev process. You spin up a bunch of feature ideas, things progress, production/integration guys come by and look at what's where and then either tell you to cut it, shelve it, or give it to someone else. Sometimes it's budget, sometimes its time, sometimes its people. Sometimes it just makes too much business sense to package it separately. Hell, being the guy who tells people to nix things or put them on hold for a different release is my job some days.

Yeah, it sounds like it. It's not ideal (most of the time) for the consumer though. Just check Imperator Rome from PI. A huge let down with half of the features which were advertised during early stages killed. They will revert them with 1.1 though.

As long as the thing you deliver is the thing you told people who gave you money for delivery, what happens behind the scenes doesn't matter. The only time you get in trouble (and rightfully so) is when the product doesn't work as advertised without your addons or when you accept money for features you didn't ship. I get the frustration when it feels like the base game could've been more if they had put the DLC in it, but that applies to most things that have extra parts that I pay for, like when Chipotle charges me extra for guacamole. No it's not great, but it's not unethical. My burrito bowl is still exactly what I was expecting when I paid for it.

Now you reminding me of the battle of Carthage. The most advertised pre-release video for Rome 2, which they completely disregarded after the initial release. Graphics were different, more than half extra enchantments weren't working, AI was far worse, the battle system also, etc come one we all know what happened back then and the clearly failed to deliver. That was clearly unethical since they presented a totally different product. I'm sure you remember all the cover-up after that

To bring things back around to the topic, the Yellow Turban stuff doesn't feel like something that the game requires in order to perform as advertised. I honestly wouldn't have expected the Yellow Turbans to be in the game outside maybe a couple of events or units. So while I dislike the pre-order system, I don't think it was wrong for them to sell it as DLC, regardless of when they started developing it.

Back on topic, yes I don't think that Yellow Turban is required. My point is totally different, but anyway. Why do you think it shouldn't be in the base game if it's already developed though? The only reason I can see is moneyyyy

[zoner16]

Back on topic, yes I don't think that Yellow Turban is required. My point is totally different, but anyway. Why do you think it shouldn't be in the base game if it's already developed though? The only reason I can see is moneyyyy

When it's developed doesn't really matter to me. My issue with pre-orders aside, so long as the thing they're advertising is the thing they're delivering, then it's just down to all of us to only pay for things that we think are worth the cost. There's nothing that says it shouldn't be in the base game, but there's also nothing that says that it must. I can't call them out for selling things for money without being a hypocrite. I'm not the one financing development, so they made no promises to me about how time and budget would be spent.

[PointOfViewGun]

Wrong, I have every right because I have seen the early access stages of Rome 2 for example (you haven't) and the final product. So I can clearly judge it.
Many of these units, factions you mentioned should have been in the base game, since they were available as Day 1 DLC (like the Pre Ordered Greek City States for Rome 2) and because the were developed before the release.It's the last time I'm saying this. For God's sake man. that's the juice
Again you can search our forums and the official ones for literally hundreds of similar threads (missing features and content) so feel free.
Now for 3K, I have also early access and as I said I'll talk more about it after it's release.
If you're unable to press the search button on a single Forum, I don't expect you to understand my points.
Why are we even talking about another user? I just tried to explain his post's reasoning. Get over it. I think I have already suggested what you can do if a user's post annoys you
Very unfortunate example. Also since when criticism is whining? I mean come on.
Again, if you haven't seen my last entry.
Plus let's stay on topic. If there is something you want to discuss about 3K feel free. This is not a CA's DLC policy thread.

It doesn't matter how much development you saw. You don't own CA or EA. You don't get to decide what's the end product is. Your take on it has no basis in reality. Just because you think something was developed before release doesn't make it cut content. There is a reason why you try to be as vague as possible and avoiding to address or give examples. No NDA stops you from substantiating your position. You have been utterly unable to name a single feature that CA made you pay for. Clearly, I'm not the one making arguments out of annoyance...

[♔Greek Strategos♔]

When it's developed doesn't really matter to me. My issue with pre-orders aside, so long as the thing they're advertising is the thing they're delivering, then it's just down to all of us to only pay for things that we think are worth the cost. There's nothing that says it shouldn't be in the base game, but there's also nothing that says that it must. I can't call them out for selling things for money without being a hypocrite. I'm not the one financing development, so they made no promises to me about how time and budget would be spent.

Fair enough

What about when your initial release is a broken mess, nothing to do with what you have advertised and you still went with Day 1 DLC?

It doesn't matter how much development you saw. You don't own CA or EA. You don't get to decide what's the end product is. Your take on it has no basis in reality. Just because you think something was developed before release doesn't make it cut content. There is a reason why you try to be as vague as possible and avoiding to address or give examples. No NDA stops you from substantiating your position. You have been utterly unable to name a single feature that CA made you pay for. Clearly, I'm not the one making arguments out of annoyance...

Alas my friend, you clearly know nothing about CA, NDAs or gaming development, I told you that I have seen exactly when they were developed, I'm not making guesses. You know the difference right? I'm sure you haven't searched anything though and that because you don't really want to see your mistake here.
But whatever you say, sweetheart

Also, as always you're making everything too personal on the Forums. I think you'll need to relax, take a deep breath and have a good night's sleep. FYI you're not in the Mudpit. You know that, right?

But everything is gonna be alright. Here, have a kiss