Development Update & Return of Development Journals

We’ve moved over to the paradox forums. Please come visit us there to discuss:
You can still read the collective wisdom - and lolz - of the community here, but posting is no longer possible.

Home Forums Age of Wonders 3 Discussions Development Update & Return of Development Journals

This topic contains 218 replies, has 76 voices, and was last updated by  Ravenholme 8 years ago.

Viewing 30 posts - 151 through 180 (of 219 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #102355

    Rhaeg
    Member

    Piracy is the most stupid reason ever [bla bla bla]

    for instance to combat piracy by making DLC only available to people with a valid account.

    There a bazillion ways of releasing DLC that could hardly be called evil. DLC is a medium, a way to release content. To name it evil/bad/stupid/silly/… is the same as calling a DVD, book, ePub or streaming audio evil/bad/stupid/silly/…

    To sum up, free DLC are fine and paid DLC are evil

    Would a new race in AOW3 for €0.01 be evil? For €0.10? €1? €1,15? €1,75? €2 + 6 chicken eggs?

    Paying for DLC is the same as paying for any other content:

    It’s up to you if you think the price they ask for the DLC is fair or not

    #102393

    Low_K
    Member

    Paid DLC is not evil, unless you release paid-DLC which only contains a gun, some clothes, or other trivial ingame rubbish. Big companies like Activison (CoD), UbiSoft (Assassin’s Creed among others) and Square Enix (Tomb Raider) are evil, releasing rubbish DLC which only contain some map or item. People actually buy that trash too.

    Paid DLC will not be evil if you pay for a substantial improvement like (in Triumph’s case) a whole new race with units and such. The DLC of Civilization V, for instance, are well worth it as it gives you a new empire with unique things to add to the game. These sorts of DLC really add something to the game, while a new gun would have been implemented from the start. Triumph, as a very small company, did take a big risk with releasing AoW 3 (luckily XCOM paved the way for turn-based rising in popularity), and having big paid-DLC and expansions will keep a steady stream of revenue going into the company which they can use to develop more content and more games.

    regarding piracy; That will always be around. It was around at the Commodore 64 and Amiga 500 times (which was the ultimate demise of the systems), as no one back then had legal games anyway (at least no one I knew 😛 ). They tried to counter that with consoles and failed. As the gaming industry is even larger than the movie industry, the statement that piracy ruins the development of games is just not true nowadays. As one CEO of the most downloaded series, Game of Thrones, even stated; “We see more (paid) subscriptions for HBO due to illegal downloads therefore the title for Most Downloaded TV Show is better than winning an Emmy, for me.”.

    My 2 cents.

    Looking forward to the DLC!

    Kind regards,

    Low

    #102396

    D.L.C.= downloadable content. It refers to the manner of acquiring it. You could just call it digitally available content and it would be the same thing. It doesn’t mean it is inherently free, or charged for.

    Expansions are major upgrades to the game that..err…expand the base game, and so should cost money. They are also downloadable content, because it is content that you will be downloading.

    IMHO, and I hate to sound rude but I will anyway, crying about paying for dlc smacks like entitlement issues. If you watch a movie, and then a sequel comes out, you usually pay to see the sequel. You won’t got to the cinema, show them the ticket to the first film, and then demand they let you see the sequel for free.

    It also irks me when people quote price as a reason to not buy a game. This game costs £40 max and I have gotten 616 hours play out of it, which by my calculations means each hour cost me 6.49 pence. A movie lasts for maybe 2 hrs and will cost you £8 at the cinema here. Then throw in your popcorn (another £2)

    Hell, even the games I haven’t played all that much (like Planetary Annihilation, or Endless Legends) don’t concern me overmuch.

    The question to ask yourself is this:

    Is the money I paid for AoW3 worth it?

    What am I willing to pay for in any dlc?

    For me, the answers are:

    yes.

    race(s) and class(es).

    To be fair to Bouh, some companies purposely withhold existing content to package into dlc, and don’t create new content. A prime example is Rome2 Total War. Any of the culture packs unlock factions that exist in your base game anyway.

    Hannibal and Caesar added new content, and new maps, so if I liked them enough I’d happily pay for them, but not to unlock the Nomadic tribes, for example.

    #102401

    GoblinCookie
    Member

    Paid DLC is not evil, unless you release paid-DLC which only contains a gun, some clothes, or other trivial ingame rubbish. Big companies like Activison (CoD), UbiSoft (Assassin’s Creed among others) and Square Enix (Tomb Raider) are evil, releasing rubbish DLC which only contain some map or item. People actually buy that trash too.

    Well what people generally mean by Paid DLC is the exploitative habit that is creeping over the industry like a plague of chopping your game up into pieces and then charging a high price for each additional fragment, despite how little in labour time the fragment is actually worth. When people think it is justified they call it an expansion pack.

    So one has a game that you sell for £30, then you sell DLC for said game for £5 even though the DLC actually is cost %1 of the cost of the original game. Thus one manages to obtain an insane profit margin.

    #102404

    Bouh
    Member

    DLC is not a neutral expression only refering to the way of getting content. There already are words for that : patch and expansions. But people would never have paid for patch, so they called them DLC and they now fragment games.

    And game fragmentation is bad, because it fragments MP community.

    #102408

    Ravenholme
    Member

    DLC is not a neutral expression only refering to the way of getting content. There already are words for that : patch and expansions. But people would never have paid for patch, so they called them DLC and they now fragment games.

    And game fragmentation is bad, because it fragments MP community.

    Expansions would do just the same though so your broken record repetition of “And it fragments the MP community” doesn’t really matter, that will happen regardless. Unless Triumph goes the risky route of patching the expansion content in but making it inaccessible to someone who hasn’t bought the game, so they can still play MP games with people who have the expansions, but don’t get access to the expansion content until they pony up the cash (As they’ve done in ArmA 3 – BIS tend to be leaders in this kind of system, as they had something similar for ArmA 2)

    But honestly, no one here is NOT going to buy the expansion content at some point, so it doesn’t really matter.

    #102428

    Draxynnic
    Member

    A lot of ‘day 1 DLC’ is stuff that a lot of customers got for free. Some of it is things like pre-order bonuses that the company decided to make available to other customers for a fee – however, preorder bonuses by nature are things that are not intended to be detrimental if you don’t have them. They’re probably among the most clear-cut of ‘dont want’em, don’t buy’em’ cases.

    The other form is things like the Stone Prisoner in Dragon Age, which was essentially a compromise with the second-hand market. It may be possible, but from my observation, it’s quite hard to get a first-hand copy of Dragon Age without Stone Prisoner being bundled in. However, Bioware and EA decided to allow second-hand selling of the license (something which is becoming increasingly uncommon these days) but they wanted a cut from this – the Stone Prisoner is essentially their incentive for people who buy DA secondhand to give them some money as well. (The Warden’s Keep DLC, on the other hand, was a bit skeevier.)

    In general… there are economic reasons while stuff bought as DLC tends to be less value for money than traditional expansion packs. Simply put, the reason is because expansion packs usually include a range of features that aren’t always going to be of interest to every player – an expansion pack needs to still represent good value for money for a customer who doesn’t care about 10-30% of the associated features. For DLC, though, a customer can simply not buy a feature they’re not interested in, so the features can be priced a little higher individually. If you want everything, this ends up being more expensive. If you only want, say, half, though, the DLC may actually end up better value for money.

    (I’d also comment that DLC that makes a previously unplayable faction playable is not necessarily simply a matter of the company implementing a toggle. AI doesn’t need an interface or other means of interacting with the player – I don’t have experience with them, but the aforementioned ‘culture packs’ may have required a bit of back-end work to actually make them playable, even the faction was already in the game in an AI-usable state.)

    ‘Course, this doesn’t work in every case, and there is little doubt that some companies have used DLC to perform highway robbery. However, the medium itself is just a means of providing a product. The relationship between individual DLCs and an expansion pack – assuming that the individual DLCs are not interdependent – is simply the same as buying a single game over a bundle, just on a smaller scale.

    In the case of, say, a new race – it’ll be interesting see see how Triumph handles the situation where one player has the NewRaceLings and another player doesn’t. Will Player A just not be able to use NewRaceLings in a shared game? Will they be able to use them, but Player B will be forced to migrate any NewRaceLing cities they acquire? Or will Player B be able to use NewRaceLing cities they acquire as a kind of ‘taster’ for what they can buy for themselves?

    As the gaming industry is even larger than the movie industry, the statement that piracy ruins the development of games is just not true nowadays. As one CEO of the most downloaded series, Game of Thrones, even stated; “We see more (paid) subscriptions for HBO due to illegal downloads therefore the title for Most Downloaded TV Show is better than winning an Emmy, for me.”.

    This is something I’ve observed myself. Basically, there are five general reasons people pirate, from most respectable to least:

    A) They have a legal copy, but the publisher has added DRM so obtrusive that a cracked pirated copy is more convenient to use. In this case, the publisher doesn’t really have a leg to stand on.

    B) While not marketed as a collector’s item, the item being pirated is no longer available – the pirate would pay for the item if it is possible, but it is not. The producer here, again, really doesn’t have a leg to stand on – the option to purchase the product ‘legally’ no longer exists. There is no lost sale because there is no sale to be had – this practise may lower the value of the item in the second-hand market, but it does not directly affect the producer (or if it does, it’s the producer’s fault).

    C) The pirate is essentially downloading it to try out the game, and if they like it, they’ll buy it (most people understand that to make more of what they like, the people who need it need to be making a living). This is, essentially, a form of free advertising, and probably results in more purchases than it loses.

    D) The pirate would pay for the product, but does not have the money to do so. It’s easy to take a moral standpoint here and say that they shouldn’t have the product if they can’t pay for it, but it still doesn’t really represent a lost sale – and in the future, when the pirate is more financially secure, they may buy the product (as per C) or the sequel. Again, it can be a form of free advertising, and in the long run probably results in more sales than lost sales.

    E) The pirate would probably not have paid for the product regardless – these people should be ashamed of themselves, but probably do not represent lost sales. However, if they like something, they’re likely to talk about it – and word of mouth is a valuable form of free advertising.

    The common thread here is that the free advertising in many cases outweighs the hypothetical lost sales due to piracy. Strict anti-piracy groups like the RIAA like to claim that every piracy event is a lost sale, but that’s simply not true – some may be Type E pirates who would have paid if they’d been forced to, but most, for whatever reasons, probably simply would not have bought the item if somehow piracy had been removed as an option.

    I think a lot of this is what the HBO CEO has recognised – lots of people downloading Game of Thrones means lots of people talking about Game of Thrones and making it a cultural phenomenon, and that sort of advertising can’t be bought (except from spreading a little free product around). It’s turned it from a niche series into something that can actually draw subscribers – with the benefit to those subscribers being that they get to be the first to watch a new episode rather than having to wait for the torrents to hit the web. It also means that it does actually get to go worldwide in a reasonable timeframe, which builds the hype further – somebody who might not otherwise have access to it at all who pirates it might then go on to contribute to the hype, which might influence someone else to get a HBO subscription.

    TL;DR: In the long run, piracy probably results in more free publicity for the company than lost sales.

    However, this does not mean that you shouldn’t pay for something if it’s reasonable for you to do so – if everyone pirates, then the company will go bust and whatever they were making that you liked will stop being made.

    #102437

    b0rsuk
    Member

    Expansions would do just the same though so your broken record repetition of “And it fragments the MP community” doesn’t really matter, that will happen regardless.

    DLC tends to be smaller than expansions, so it causes more severe fragmentation. This is in part because expansions were common in retail era, where you had to put a bit more in the box to make it worthwile. DLC became widespread in digital era, where unscrupulous publishers can divide game however they see if. And they do, if they think they can get away with it.

    Ever heard the phrase “90% of lawyers gives the rest bad reputation.” ? Are you sure there’s nothing about lawyer proffesion that attracts greedy bastards ?

    #102448

    (I’d also comment that DLC that makes a previously unplayable faction playable is not necessarily simply a matter of the company implementing a toggle. AI doesn’t need an interface or other means of interacting with the player – I don’t have experience with them, but the aforementioned ‘culture packs’ may have required a bit of back-end work to actually make them playable, even the faction was already in the game in an AI-usable state.)

    I’m no expert, but I do know that modders managed to unlock all these factions long before CA/Sega made them available, indicating to me (and to many others) that it was a genuine case of “let us withhold access to stuff already in the game and get an extra dollar out of it.”

    #102449

    Draxynnic
    Member

    Entirely possible – I’m just thinking that it’s possible that one faction or another could be ‘done’ sufficiently for the AI to use it, but not for a human player. In the case of Total War, it’s plausible that the modders filled in the gaps themselves… or, of course, that it was held back deliberately for more moneyz and the modders just unlocked it. Like I said, I’m not familiar enough with it, just pointing out that not every case of ‘we made this previously existing NPC faction playable!’ need be for dubious reasons.

    #102451

    Garresh
    Member

    I don’t get why anyone would have a problem with giving more money to Triumph. Hell I wish they had a “Donate” button so I could give them more money anyways. I genuinely mean it when I say this is probably the best strategy game in the last decade. Nothing else I’ve played has come close. Not starcraft 2, Civ 4, Civ 5, or even Xcom. And god help whoever mentions the abominations calling themselves Heroes of Might and Magic games these days. Dunno why anyone has a problem giving them money. They’re doing everything they can to make this game succeed, and so far as I’m concerned they’re doing a terrific job.

    So, uh, yeah…

    #102452

    Lightform
    Member

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Backero wrote:</div>
    I think that it will be no Frostlings AND no Halflings, but something new.

    The new race will have ling in the name, so it really is very very likely that it’ll be Halflings or Frostlings. I know this isn’t guaranteed, but I bet my fifth-born son (the first four I’ll already have to give away due to lost bets) that it’ll be one of the two! ;)

    Also your profile pic is awesome, I recognized it right away. Black Water Gospel ftw! :D

    OMG Nu… your comment is hilarious, thanks for a good laugh 😀

    #102456

    My middle name is Triumph…please send money.

    #102457

    Leon Feargus
    Member

    My middle name is Triumph…please send money.

    nonsense, your middle name is Battle and everyone knows it!

    #102458

    If you watch a movie, and then a sequel comes out, you usually pay to see the sequel. You won’t got to the cinema, show them the ticket to the first film, and then demand they let you see the sequel for free.

    thanks BBB, ive just wet myself laughing lol

    #102459

    terrahero
    Member

    I dont see what the problem with DLC is. Its a means of doing extra content, just like in ye olde days we had expansions.

    Some companies simply abuse this by slicing content from the game and selling it seperately. But it doesnt take DLC to do this, infact i remember such accusations were made back when DLC was an expansion pack you bought in the stores on a CD. This is nothing new, or inherent to DLC, but simply greedy companies being dishonest with the consumer.

    Judge the DLC for yourself if its worth it. If not, then dont buy it. Simple as that really.
    But thats a very personal choice.

    #102461

    I think its time to drop this DLC thing now. We mostly all agree that some DLC is too severe coughTotalWarcough, but the statement of “DLC IS EVIL !!” for the reasons stated is wrong.

    Now bring on the patch ! Me loins cany handle the wait no mores! “>.>

    #102478

    Bouh
    Member

    DLC is a ‘Newspeak’ word invented to take more money from customers, and they cut games into tiny pieces, exactly like it was predicted by gamers when they were introduced on console about 10 years ago. They are evil.

    #102483

    esvath
    Member

    No further news from the dev yet?

    #102487

    Ravenholme
    Member

    No further news from the dev yet?

    Sadly not.

    #102489

    Such impatience people….

    #102497

    Backero
    Member

    Time to hint 😀 First digit of new race? Name of one of their units? How big are they? What’s color of their skin? 😀 Are they similar to any animal?

    #102509

    Zaskow
    Member

    Such impatience people….

    Is it too difficult to find one minute and write a few words about progress? Share new art, concept, gameplay feature? I think, no.

    #102511

    Ravenholme
    Member

    Hm, semi-relevant:

    I only joined the forums recently but have seen people mentioning Racial Tier 4 units now and then as something they’d like to happen/that may be happening. I was just wondering if anyone knew if the Devs had actually said that they were going to add Racial Tier 4 units, or was it just people longing for the glory days of Shadow Magic et al?

    #102513

    Draxynnic
    Member

    Unless there’s something I’ve missed, the latter. It’s been wishlisted a lot, but I don’t think the devs have ever commented on it.

    #102515

    Ravenholme
    Member

    Unless there’s something I’ve missed, the latter. It’s been wishlisted a lot, but I don’t think the devs have ever commented on it.

    Okay, cheers for that, that’s what I expected, and I can’t say I have strong feelings about racial T4s, but I’ve been playing Shadow Magic recently and there are some that I could see being interesting if they returned, but I’d rather have one of the races which end in -ling.

    #102518

    Garresh
    Member

    DLC is a ‘Newspeak’ word invented to take more money from customers, and they cut games into tiny pieces, exactly like it was predicted by gamers when they were introduced on console about 10 years ago. They are evil.

    There is fundamentally no difference between a DLC and an expansion pack. People will make shitty overpriced dlcs and people will make shitty overpriced expansion packs. Neither is inherently evil. If I had to peg a business model as evil I’d pick free to play, and yet Dota is 100% free to play with the only thing you pay for being cosmetics. I’ve thrown money at them in the past to support this model.

    Any company can use any medium for good or evil. Just look at their track record if you want to know if its worth it. Does anyone here really doubt Triumph? I mean they’re not perfect but their intentions are pure enough. I mean fuck they’re an independent studio. They don’t have to worry as much about pressure from execs. And is Notch going to tell them to use sketchy models? Of course not. This is a stupid panic with no logical basis. I don’t buy DLCs from EA. I will buy dlcs from Bethesda. Except horse armor. They screwed up on that, but the other oblivion dlcs were like $3 and were legitimately cool stuff that added to the game.

    #102524

    b0rsuk
    Member

    There is fundamentally no difference between a DLC and an expansion pack. People will make shitty overpriced dlcs and people will make shitty overpriced expansion packs. Neither is inherently evil. If I had to peg a business model as evil I’d pick free to play, and yet Dota is 100% free to play with the only thing you pay for being cosmetics.

    1. There is a difference because of how the word has been used in the past. They carry different expectations and appear in different contexts. Have you ever heard about expansions as episodic content ? Games unfinished by design ? Have you ever heard about standalone DLC ? Hint – Age of Wonders: Shadow Magic.

    2. Time to expand your vocabulary. Many people distinguish between “free to play” and “pay to win”. There’s also “technically free to play” – like the mobile ungeonG eeperK (it doesn’t deserve any free promotion and google hits).

    Using your logic, there’s nothing wrong with free to play, because it’s possible to make it not suck, and some people have done that.

    Unreal Tournament 2014 developers think the term has such bad connotations they don’t want to be associated with it:

    When the game is playable, it will be free. Not free to play, just free.

    If you want to develop some new stuff for a game and don’t want to rip people off, why call it “DLC” ?

    #102537

    Is it too difficult to find one minute and write a few words about progress? Share new art, concept, gameplay feature? I think, no.

    Anything TS says is like a press release, and at this point would raise many more questions than it answered, and lead people to just want more and more and more!

    It is NOT the same as you or I logging into the forums to discuss the Lings….

    Anyway, I snuck into the Triumph office, and found out what the new race is.

    It.

    is.

    Linglings

    #102542

    Garresh
    Member

    All free to play games are pay to win in one shape or another except dota and a few oddball cases. Even league is a cleverly masked pay to win scheme. I think Path of Exile is purely cosmetic with their pay shop as well. Fun aside though, eve online is sort of pay to win through its plex system, but it balances out to perfect karmic justice when you see all the unskilled players who spend tons of money on expensive ships only to get outplayed, robbed, and mocked mercilessly by players who dont care about money. Trying to think of other games that are free to play or functionally okay even with pay to win elements, and I’m honestly drawing a blank.

    Also dlc only really has a bad connotation in the console crowd. In my extremely biased experience, since PC gaming got neglected by most big publishers for about 5 years, indie games and medium size projects launched on steam and filled the void. Many of the successful ones had ethical business practices and fantastic dlc. I could probably rail of like 30 teams with good dlc history.

    Im going to sound like a huge elitist here, but the big stink on dlc is because shit publishers push out shit games with shit dlc, and people refuse to learn from their mistakes and show a little restraint. And that’s coming from a retard who spent $50 getting a purple terrorblade arcana skin in dota 2. Ive gotten burned by shitty business models exactly once, when League *reworked* several heroes I spent real money on to unlock, and get skins for. I am not a smart man, but after the first time you get burned maybe you should stop touching your hand wallet to the oven?

    Either way its a moot point because Triumph could call its content packages “turdbytes” and they’d still be priced fairly and pretty friggin cool. A name has scary connotations, but appeal to fear is a shitty way to judge the merits and failings of something.

Viewing 30 posts - 151 through 180 (of 219 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.