Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Mech#4]

I don't often go out of my way to buy DLC, usually only if a mod I like requires it, and I have found I tend to end up with quite a few as they're given away for free.

Besides all that, I feel like comparing the cost of multiple DLC to an expansion, like "Lord of Destruction".

I think Lord of Destruction was around $60 - $70AUD back when I bought it around 1998 (Apparently about $98 AUD now). It included 2 new characters and a new chapter with 5-6 new locations, items, mechanics and cinematics. (I cannot find the exact price for LOD as it was on release in Australia. My box doesn't have the price sticker anymore)

Going by the prices for DLC on Rome 2 at the moment; "Wrath of Sparta" campaign is $14.99 USD ($19.16 AUD). Totalling up "Caesar in Gaul", "Hannibal at the Gates" and "Wrath of Sparta" equals $45 USD (Rounded up). That's $57.52 AUD at current value.

I did this mostly because I think I often get the perception that since they're all individually priced and boxes (figuratively speaking) it ends up costing more, but three campaigns and faction additions for $60 AUD isn't too bad.

It is certainly annoying having to buy all the factions in separate bundles. All the faction and unit packs for Rome 2 ends up costing $43 USD ($54.96 AUD).

Totalled with the previous amount, do we think that all the DLC for Rome 2, added together for $91 USD ($116.31 AUD) has the same content value of Lord of Destruction in 1998?

[Retropunch]

I don't often go out of my way to buy DLC, usually only if a mod I like requires it, and I have found I tend to end up with quite a few as they're given away for free.

Besides all that, I feel like comparing the cost of multiple DLC to an expansion, like "Lord of Destruction".

It's tricky to compare, as we're comparing across different genres. I remember LoD being completely huge when it dropped - so much more content, two whole new characters (with new weapons, skills) it had skill synergies, jewels, monster weaknesses/strengths and all sorts.

I think the thing is that LoD was a definite improvement and a move forward - a sort of mini-sequel. Most DLC just feels like stuff that they either didn't or couldn't throw in the original. While that was fine to begin with, it's now become a case of putting in only the bare minimum in the base game, and then having all the extras in DLC.

[Neonivek]

Another way of putting it is..

How often does DLC shake up the formula?

Lord of Destruction was very noticeable when you were playing with it on versus when you weren't even when you didn't use those two new characters. It changed the entire landscape of how the game was meant to be played.

A proper expansion doesn't just add content for the sake of there being more content.

The first DLC for this game hands down will be a unit faction that will ALREADY be in the game...

The next DLC will be three factions which are the same faction with a few units rearranged, who will bare a striking resemblance to units who already exist in the game.

The way I put it is if you get DLC and it is possible to play the game without knowing there was any DLC to begin with... It wasn't very good.

Yes I will give credit where credit is due and say that while Crusader Kings 2 at least has the right "idea" in that every major expansion they had, the new factions didn't play the same. Mind you I felt like they often didn't do enough but the thought is there. (they still milked that game unjustly... Seriously? you need to PAY to have the game handle character models correctly? Why not just have that be part of the Nordic expansion? Ehh it is Paradox and they are quite famous for rip off dlc anyhow.)

[Mech#4]

I can certainly see that things sometimes feel that they're adding slight variations of existing content. Taking a closer genre of game to Rome 2, "Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance" was $39.99 USD (Roughly $40.00 - $45.00 AUD in 2007) as reported from a review by IGN in 2007. "Mark of Chaos: Battle March" was the same price at $39.99 USD in 2008 (a dollar or 2 difference between 2007 and 2008 inflation).

Or do we think we should only compare DLC to other DLC? What do we think was the most value for money DLC released for a game?

[Neonivek]

I prefer to compare the games FULLY DLCed... and Fully Minor DLCed (as in minus the really expensive ones).

But DLC needs to be compared to the game it was released with.

There is a reason why unlocking "Extra generic faction #1234" might have more "content" in terms of data and time/effort but lacks content because... it is just another generic faction.

Oddly enough the one expansion that I was miffed at was the Empire Total War expansions in that they were pretty much standalone... Which is a shame because a lot of people would have preferred them to exist in the global theater.

[Jopax]

Or you could just compare the Rome2+DLC to old Rome+Expansions (IIRC there were two of them) and see how the price/content ratio works out. I wouldn't consider Atilla for R2 tho since it comes out almost as a full game as far as the price goes.

[Dorsidwarf]

Another way of putting it is..

How often does DLC shake up the formula?

Lord of Destruction was very noticeable when you were playing with it on versus when you weren't even when you didn't use those two new characters. It changed the entire landscape of how the game was meant to be played.

A proper expansion doesn't just add content for the sake of there being more content.

The first DLC for this game hands down will be a unit faction that will ALREADY be in the game...

The next DLC will be three factions which are the same faction with a few units rearranged, who will bare a striking resemblance to units who already exist in the game.

The way I put it is if you get DLC and it is possible to play the game without knowing there was any DLC to begin with... It wasn't very good.

Yes I will give credit where credit is due and say that while Crusader Kings 2 at least has the right "idea" in that every major expansion they had, the new factions didn't play the same. Mind you I felt like they often didn't do enough but the thought is there. (they still milked that game unjustly... Seriously? you need to PAY to have the game handle character models correctly? Why not just have that be part of the Nordic expansion? Ehh it is Paradox and they are quite famous for rip off dlc anyhow.)

Paradox may be infamous for bad DLC handling, but the fact that they've been updating the basic game (for free) every time they release a DLC with features, ease of use, and acessibility, is nothing short of amazing. If you don't believe me, download the demo, which hasn't been touched since release, and compare.

[Mech#4]

The two expansions for Rome 1 were "Barbarian Invasion" and "Alexander the Great" or something similarly named. I believe the first one is much more highly regarded than the second though I'm unsure of details. I do not own the second expansion because it was not included in the anthology I bought.

Mechanics wise they haven't changed much in the DLC added to Rome 2 as much as they changed in the BI expansion for Rome 1. However, the base game of Rome 2 has changed a fair bit from release with patches. The diplomacy mechanic got an overhaul as well as the faction gravitas/popularity system.

"Barbarian Invasion" I don't think changes the base game as it is a separate campaign to the original "take over the world as Rome or another faction", something similar to the expansions for Medieval 2: Total War where the Kingdoms expansion added about 4 focused campaigns with new mechanics that didn't modify the base game campaign.


Do we think there will be a higher or lower chance for "reskinning" of factions in Warhammer: Total War? Aside from the Empire I don't really think so. The other factions are rather unified in their numbers. Let's take Orcs and Goblins; from these we can make base Orcs and Goblins, Forest Goblins, Night Gobins, Feral Orcs and possibly one or two others (sorry, I'm not that knowledgeable on OaG).
Skaven have base warlord, Pestilens, Skrye, Moulder and Eshin, each of which has a big difference in focus (Pestilens = frenzied monks, Skyre = machines, Moulder = mutated monsters and Eshin = assassins).

[Neonivek]

Paradox may be infamous for bad DLC handling, but the fact that they've been updating the basic game (for free) every time they release a DLC with features, ease of use, and acessibility, is nothing short of amazing. If you don't believe me, download the demo, which hasn't been touched since release, and compare.

In all fairness they had to. It is like when some games raise the level cap with DLC, sometimes they have to raise everyone's level cap.

[dennislp3]

Or you could just compare the Rome2+DLC to old Rome+Expansions (IIRC there were two of them) and see how the price/content ratio works out. I wouldn't consider Atilla for R2 tho since it comes out almost as a full game as far as the price goes.

Attila actually is a full game and has no actual connection to Rome 2. The lower entry price is most likely to make buying the game easy and then scrape the rest of the money from you in the form of DLC. It's really approaching a semi "free to play" point.

And yes I am afraid that Warhammer will be the next DLC whore of a game...which makes me sad

[Neonivek]

It will hurt especially hard with Warhammer because it does have some genuinely great things to draw upon for great new content.

[gimli]

No shit. We talk about Warhammer afterall. Insane amount of content can be put into DLCs..and you bet that they will release buttload of DLCs. However new races won't be added and released via DLCs IMO, those are better material for expansion packs.

[scriver]

Paradox may be infamous for bad DLC handling, but the fact that they've been updating the basic game (for free) every time they release a DLC with features, ease of use, and acessibility, is nothing short of amazing. If you don't believe me, download the demo, which hasn't been touched since release, and compare.

In all fairness they had to. It is like when some games raise the level cap with DLC, sometimes they have to raise everyone's level cap.

That's not very similar, and they didn't have to do anything. I don't think they releasing free content out of the kindness of their hearts, mind you, it's fairly obvious it was decided in order to soothe the hate they would get from their decision to go from an expansion pack model to a "DLC only" model. But they certainly could have just ignored their angry fans in that matter - they control almost the entirety of a very niche market, they have no competitors who make the same kind of games that they do. If they wanted to lock all new content into DLC they could have.

[dennislp3]

No shit. We talk about Warhammer afterall. Insane amount of content can be put into DLCs..and you bet that they will release buttload of DLCs. However new races won't be added and released via DLCs IMO, those are better material for expansion packs.

Attila makes me think otherwise. Those are not as varied but they do love cramming new factions as $8 DLC

[Mech#4]

There's been some more comments made by Creative Assembly regarding how the game, factions and similar will be handled.

I copied this from a repost of the information made by someone on the Total War forums. Apparently the comments themselves were made on Youtube.

Spoiler: List in Here (click to show/hide)

The following information is posted by CA themselves on TWC and in the youtube comment section.

 Reminder; Everything is subject to change (as usual). Nothing is finalized.



What details do we know about Total War: Warhammer?

Sandbox & narrative


 An interview with Mike Simpson:

 "We're using the fantastisc characters as a template to work more story into the game. Nonetheless, the totalwar's sandbox-gamemechanics are sacred to us; the player tells his own story through his actions in a living world. The rich Warhammer-lore helps us to breath life into this world - more so than its otherwise possible with a historic scenario."

Playable Races

- In Total War: WARHAMMER you’ll have four races to choose from, Greenskins, The Empire, Dwarfs and Vampire Counts. Each race has a legendary lord character , who is the leader of a faction within your chosen race.

Characters

 - Each legendary character has a quest arc, unique abilities, armour, weapons and in some cases, access to mounts. Each race will play very differently from each other; to master them all will require massive variation in campaign and battle strategy. Greenskins aren’t going to behave the same way as the Empire for example, and will have access to different playstyles and features.

Variation

 - The races in Warhammer are massively different in variation and content compared to factions we’ve depicted in our games before. Given the huge variety in creatures, characters and machines in the Warhammer world, we’ve decided to go deep rather than wide.

- We’ll be putting as much unit and content variation as we can into the main game to best represent the incredibly detailed races we’ve chosen first. The game will provide just as many hundreds of hours of gameplay as any other Total War game. Probably more as the sides you choose won’t be as similar to each other, so you’ll experience far greater variation in campaigns than before.

 - To compare, ATTILA has 6 model skeletons underlying all the units used in the game (human, horse, elephant, dog,etc). In Total War: WARHAMMER, there’s 24 in the first game alone, each representing a different creature or machine type.

Development time

 - Total War: Warhammer has been in development for a number of years already.

Future Content

- We’re planning full game follow-ups, DLC content packs and Free-LC to follow the main release.
 These will include new playable Lords, units, races and more. We’ll talk about these in time, but for now, our focus is on crafting a deep, rich and content-heavy main game.

 - Future instalments of the trilogy will expand the world-map, bringing unique new terrain and introducing new playable Lords and their races. We’re planning these to be massive standalone follow-ups to the main game (like ATTILA to ROME II). You’ll be able to get just these and play them on their own if you like or, if you have the main game too, you’ll eventually be able to play across an expanded campaign map that includes all available areas of the Old World.
Modding

 -As this isn’t just a CA game, regretfully there are no plans to support modding for Total War: Warhammer. An Assembly Kit is will be available very shortly for Total War: ATTILA however, and we will continue to support modding for that title and plan to for future historical Total Wars. On Beta/Early Access

 We’ve no plans to make an open beta available before launch.

 -Will CA
Historical Total War games

 Historicity themed Total War games are safe. As houses. As very well defended houses. Total War: Warhammer is being developed in parallel with our historical titles.

 We have no plans to abandon ATTILA. I'm sorry I can't say much, but Total War: ATTILA is far from done. Source; Comments Section, TWC and confirmation

Interesting parts is mention that the factions will play differently and there will be a large variety of units available. The bit on characters with quest arcs, items and possibly mounts is intriguing and reminds me of the avatar they had in the online section of Shogun 2 a bit.

I also like the part saying that the planned expansions will add to the overall campaign map. So if they make one based in Lustria than that area will be added to the base game campaign, not just as a separate campaign like, say, "Wrath of Sparta".