Full game or split game?

[MissRarity]

Nobody's making anyone pay anything. You guys should drop the pretentious arguments.

This argument infatuates me, since it falls under ''A company exists do make money'' style of debate where we are costumers are painted as idiots for pointing out the failure of a business practise. And, sorry my friend, i refuse to ''drop the pretentious arguments'' (I do however, wonder where this ''Pretentious arguments'' are coming from)

If we just...well stop, and i mean everyone, not only will this practice not stop, it will keep going. Sure, i like all of you advice not to buy most of those DLC packs, and if you must, do it when its on sale at a price you can accept.

So really, perhaps you should drop the ''pretentious'' arguments.

If Bethesda wanted to make clothes DLC for Skyrim, I would expect some damn good clothes DLC. Much the same, if CA insists on making me pay for bundles of units, I at least want some awesome, unique units.

But, you get Oathsworn Spearmen.....oh...wait...

[PointOfViewGun]

This argument infatuates me, since it falls under ''A company exists do make money'' style of debate where we are costumers are painted as idiots for pointing out the failure of a business practise. And, sorry my friend, i refuse to ''drop the pretentious arguments'' (I do however, wonder where this ''Pretentious arguments'' are coming from)

If we just...well stop, and i mean everyone, not only will this practice not stop, it will keep going. Sure, i like all of you advice not to buy most of those DLC packs, and if you must, do it when its on sale at a price you can accept.

So really, perhaps you should drop the ''pretentious'' arguments.

Nobody decides not to buy a DLC just because someone doesn't whine about it endlessly. For you to be able to defend your pretentious arguments, you should first try to address them. As I said, nobody's making you to pay for any of those DLCs.

[MissRarity]

Nobody decides not to buy a DLC just because someone doesn't whine about it endlessly. For you to be able to defend your pretentious arguments, you should first try to address them. As I said, nobody's making you to pay for any of those DLCs.

I am addressing you right now, arnt i? Of course some people decide to buy a piece of DLC if they are unaware that it is chucks of dead cat. Information about content is pretty important in this day and age.

[PointOfViewGun]

I am addressing you right now, arnt i? Of course some people decide to buy a piece of DLC if they are unaware that it is chucks of dead cat. Information about content is pretty important in this day and age.

Addressing me doesn't mean you're addressing my points which you seem to be avoiding at all costs... DLC information is provided in pretty basic detail. You usually get a list of what you're getting. You're trying to create an issue when there isn't one.

[Tyso3]

For fux Sake Setekh. The entire topic of this discussion is wether CA will release a full game or sell it off in parts. so all these arguments are valid. So get over it.


YES nobody is forced to buy dlc, but nobody is forced to use fossil fueled cars either that cause wars and destroy the environment (see the relation?)


The units in the unit packs are UTTER CRAP. Clones of units that already existed and took someone at CA 5 mins at most to finish. In reguards to factions, ALL OF THE FACTIONS in faction dlc were included in the original game, there was no need to unlock them as we had already paid for them.

Take Pergamon for example, a nation i had played on campaign for what, 2 years before ca made me pay for them to play them?


We are NOT AGAINST DLC, but it seems were are all against DLC that we ALREADY FXING PAID FOR. So if CA want to add DLC, fantastic, let them actually put the effort into bringing me something new and fresh rather than unlocking something i already had unlocked for years, or giving me 'Roman-Spartan Hoplite' units with same stats and look as spartan hoplites.


The rome 2 Campaign packs were the ONLY redeeming part of their current DLC.

For a game that had SO MANY problems since day 1, it was just a slap in the face and a piss on the head to everyone who pre-ordered to support to company.

[PointOfViewGun]

For fux Sake Setekh. The entire topic of this discussion is wether CA will release a full game or sell it off in parts. so all these arguments are valid. So get over it.

YES nobody is forced to buy dlc, but nobody is forced to use fossil fueled cars either that cause wars and destroy the environment (see the relation?)

The units in the unit packs are UTTER CRAP. Clones of units that already existed and took someone at CA 5 mins at most to finish. In reguards to factions, ALL OF THE FACTIONS in faction dlc were included in the original game, there was no need to unlock them as we had already paid for them.

Take Pergamon for example, a nation i had played on campaign for what, 2 years before ca made me pay for them to play them?

We are NOT AGAINST DLC, but it seems were are all against DLC that we ALREADY FXING PAID FOR. So if CA want to add DLC, fantastic, let them actually put the effort into bringing me something new and fresh rather than unlocking something i already had unlocked for years, or giving me 'Roman-Spartan Hoplite' units with same stats and look as spartan hoplites.

The rome 2 Campaign packs were the ONLY redeeming part of their current DLC.

For a game that had SO MANY problems since day 1, it was just a slap in the face and a piss on the head to everyone who pre-ordered to support to company.

My objections against some of the arguments used in this topic is equally valid. Your objection to it and telling me to get over it is noted for its irony though.

It's an utterly idiotic thing to compare DLCs to usage of fossil fuels. There is literally not a single point in there that makes sense.

If the units are crap, don't buy them. They don't affect the game in any manner. All of the factions from the faction DLCs are not included in the original game. You bought a game with 8 playable faction. Rest is extra. You don't own the rest just because you have the game installed in your computer. The DLCs were not a slap in the face or a piss on the head. That's a rather absurd and childish way of describing it. You were forced to buy nothing. Nor any of the DLCs gave you content that you already paid for.

[♘Top Hat Zebra]

Yes, thank you General Obvious, nobody has a gun put to their head being forced to purchase DLC. Or, to be completely accurate so you don't misinterpret my words, I do not know of anyone that has a gun put to their head, being force to purchase DLC, though it is possible.


What I meant to say, General Obvious, is that if we want access to those units, which again are literally worse than units that you can get in a mod (That is, modification of a game's files in order to produce something different from vanilla (That is, the base game without any modifications, not ice cream flavor) and not a shorthand for moderator (Which is a person who moderates a forum and ensures good conduct according to the rules.) Just to be perfectly clear so you can't argue semantics, okay?)

Anyway, we are required to pay money to access those units, which is ridiculous, because we can get better units for free.

"Mehhhhh, yesssss, but you could just not buy them!"

Way to miss the point, genius. My complaint is not that they are overpriced (They are) or a rip off (They are.) My complaint is that they are objectively of a worse quality, less detail, less variety, less accurate, just utterly and completely less than a mod could, and has, done. Why? CA created the game. They could at least take some time to create unique assets for the new units. Shogun 2, though I didn't like it there either, at least had some actual, unique units for DLC, and even two unique factions. Relatively, at least.


Whether I buy them, whether anyone buys them, is utterly irrelevant. CA expects people to purchase these DLC, but they are clearly, obviously, doing very little work on them whatsoever. Even the campaign packs aren't that impressive, when you compare it to work that modders have done in the past, even with Warscape games.

[PointOfViewGun]

Yes, thank you General Obvious, nobody has a gun put to their head being forced to purchase DLC. Or, to be completely accurate so you don't misinterpret my words, I do not know of anyone that has a gun put to their head, being force to purchase DLC, though it is possible.

What I meant to say, General Obvious, is that if we want access to those units, which again are literally worse than units that you can get in a mod (That is, modification of a game's files in order to produce something different from vanilla (That is, the base game without any modifications, not ice cream flavor) and not a shorthand for moderator (Which is a person who moderates a forum and ensures good conduct according to the rules.) Just to be perfectly clear so you can't argue semantics, okay?)

Anyway, we are required to pay money to access those units, which is ridiculous, because we can get better units for free.

"Mehhhhh, yesssss, but you could just not buy them!"

Way to miss the point, genius. My complaint is not that they are overpriced (They are) or a rip off (They are.) My complaint is that they are objectively of a worse quality, less detail, less variety, less accurate, just utterly and completely less than a mod could, and has, done. Why? CA created the game. They could at least take some time to create unique assets for the new units. Shogun 2, though I didn't like it there either, at least had some actual, unique units for DLC, and even two unique factions. Relatively, at least.

Whether I buy them, whether anyone buys them, is utterly irrelevant. CA expects people to purchase these DLC, but they are clearly, obviously, doing very little work on them whatsoever. Even the campaign packs aren't that impressive, when you compare it to work that modders have done in the past, even with Warscape games.

Sigh... You're not saying anything sensible. If you think moders make better units then don't buy CA DLCs. I'm not missing a point. You just don't have a point. There is always a product out there that is inferior to other products but priced more than them. No one whines about a company insisting on making people pay for their product. It's an idiotic argument to make at best. Making such a childish post doesn't support that in a sensible way at all.

[♘Top Hat Zebra]

Sigh... You're not saying anything sensible. If you think moders make better units then don't buy CA DLCs. I'm not missing a point. You just don't have a point. There is always a product out there that is inferior to other products but priced more than them. No one whines about a company insisting on making people pay for their product. It's an idiotic argument to make at best. Making such a childish post doesn't support that in a sensible way at all.

Yes, exactly. No one is whining about a company insisting on making people pay for their product. That is irrelevant to the conversation though.

This conversation is about the quality of DLC, not whether products should be purchased. Do keep up.

If CA are going to charge for unit packs and factions, I would prefer they at least made unit packs and factions better than modders, who do the exact same thing except at a higher quality. I literally just said that in my last post. I even pointed out how anybody buying them is completely irrelevant to what I am talking about, and you still managed to miss the point, while saying you weren't missing the point.

Are we all in agreement here? Do we all agree that CA should create better DLC? Yes? No? Would you prefer they didn't make better DLC? I don't understand what you are disagreeing with.

I honestly do not see how you can argue against better quality DLC. Nobody is complaining, and nobody is whining, this is the most basic constructive criticism I can think of. If you insist on charging for unit packs, do them better than the people who are doing it for free.

[PointOfViewGun]

Yes, exactly. No one is whining about a company insisting on making people pay for their product. That is irrelevant to the conversation though.

This conversation is about the quality of DLC, not whether products should be purchased. Do keep up.

If CA are going to charge for unit packs and factions, I would prefer they at least made unit packs and factions better than modders, who do the exact same thing except at a higher quality. I literally just said that in my last post. I even pointed out how anybody buying them is completely irrelevant to what I am talking about, and you still managed to miss the point, while saying you weren't missing the point.

Are we all in agreement here? Do we all agree that CA should create better DLC? Yes? No? Would you prefer they didn't make better DLC? I don't understand what you are disagreeing with.

I honestly do not see how you can argue against better quality DLC. Nobody is complaining, and nobody is whining, this is the most basic constructive criticism I can think of. If you insist on charging for unit packs, do them better than the people who are doing it for free.

You were whining about it. Now, you're now whining about that whining... Just because you later on changed your focus doesn't change your previous words. As a human being you're capable of making multiple points. You said A. You said B. Now, you're arguing as if B was all that you said. I'm talking about A.

I haven't seen a faction unlock mod that's as detailed as the ones provided by CA. So, you talking as if they're infinitely better doesn't register anything in me. DLCs from CA give you new units, new building chains, new technologies, traits and campaign objectives.

I always think people can do better. This includes your post here. You could actually address my points. You're not. Sort of makes your accusation of me missing the point ironic. Everything in life can be better. There is always room for improvement. That doesn't mean I should talk as if I'm entitled to it. The language of saying that CA insists on making you pay for DLCs points at that.

Why are you not saying that CA insists on giving you free awesome units? They give the tools to moders to make new units. They have a whole Workshop section in Steam to provide you with a great variety of units and factions. You paid for none of that. It's all extra. Somehow, in that case, CA is not insisting on making you get free stuff. Interesting.

[♘Top Hat Zebra]

You were whining about it. Now, you're now whining about that whining... Just because you later on changed your focus doesn't change your previous words. As a human being you're capable of making multiple points. You said A. You said B. Now, you're arguing as if B was all that you said. I'm talking about A.

I haven't seen a faction unlock mod that's as detailed as the ones provided by CA. So, you talking as if they're infinitely better doesn't register anything in me. DLCs from CA give you new units, new building chains, new technologies, traits and campaign objectives.

I always think people can do better. This includes your post here. You could actually address my points. You're not. Sort of makes your accusation of me missing the point ironic. Everything in life can be better. There is always room for improvement. That doesn't mean I should talk as if I'm entitled to it. The language of saying that CA insists on making you pay for DLCs points at that.

Why are you not saying that CA insists on giving you free awesome units? They give the tools to moders to make new units. They have a whole Workshop section in Steam to provide you with a great variety of units and factions. You paid for none of that. It's all extra. Somehow, in that case, CA is not insisting on making you get free stuff. Interesting.

When did I ever complain that the DLC weren't free? My entire point in this thread has always been about quality. If they are going to charge for a product, they should at least make that product better than the ones who are doing it for free.

Perhaps it is subjective with factions, slightly. The mods for factions have better, more detailed descriptions and more interesting traits, while also adding better units. (Radious mod for Rome 2 has an official submod adding various factions, for instance.)

Im not talking about mod tools. Why would I? Mod tools are irrelevant to my point.

And what points have you made that I haven't addressed? You haven't made any points, you've just disagreed, without giving a reason, with points that I have made.

CA could, and should, increase the quality of it's DLCs, I say. "Well that doesn't mean you're entitled to it" you counter. That makes no sense! Im not demanding they make better DLC, Im not forcing them to make better DLC, Im not arguing that they are worthless sacks of slime for not making better DLC. Nobody is entitled to... That doesn't make sense, and nobody here is claiming it, so you can take your strawman and light it on fire and use it to quench those tears of righteous victory, because that was not the triumphant argument you thought it was.

The little DLCs are not good right now. The little DLCs could be much better, and, thus, the little DLCs should be much better. Then I might actually buy them.

[PointOfViewGun]

When did I ever complain that the DLC weren't free? My entire point in this thread has always been about quality. If they are going to charge for a product, they should at least make that product better than the ones who are doing it for free.

Perhaps it is subjective with factions, slightly. The mods for factions have better, more detailed descriptions and more interesting traits, while also adding better units. (Radious mod for Rome 2 has an official submod adding various factions, for instance.)

Im not talking about mod tools. Why would I? Mod tools are irrelevant to my point.

And what points have you made that I haven't addressed? You haven't made any points, you've just disagreed, without giving a reason, with points that I have made.

CA could, and should, increase the quality of it's DLCs, I say. "Well that doesn't mean you're entitled to it" you counter. That makes no sense! Im not demanding they make better DLC, Im not forcing them to make better DLC, Im not arguing that they are worthless sacks of slime for not making better DLC. Nobody is entitled to... That doesn't make sense, and nobody here is claiming it, so you can take your strawman and light it on fire and use it to quench those tears of righteous victory, because that was not the triumphant argument you thought it was.

The little DLCs are not good right now. The little DLCs could be much better, and, thus, the little DLCs should be much better. Then I might actually buy them.

Looks like you need to read the opening post. Quality is not part of it, but, it's fine. You can talk about quality. I'm just putting your standards to test. CA provides tools and a place for you to get mods, which you call much better than the ones created by CA itself. So, overall, CA provides more value with mass majority of it being for free. How could CA be insisting on making you pay for a DLC when they provide the means for you to get so many free stuff?

I specifically enjoyed the Black Sea Colonies DLC. It provided me with one of the most enjoyable campaigns with Cimmeria. I'm talking about factions, units, building chains, technologies, objectives, and you're talking about better descriptions...

You really need to pay some attention. I didn't talk about being entitled to something because you asked for better quality. The fact that you're using so much misrepresentation to form a defense shows that you don't really have a defense of what I actually criticized. I even explicitly pointed out that you not being entitled to anything is because of the language you used which had you talking about CA insisting on you to pay for their DLCs.

[♘Top Hat Zebra]

I do not care about the opening post, I am not the OP.

CA provides tools. Wonderful. People make loads of free content with those tools. Also wonderful. Also, irrelevant, save for the fact that much of that free content is superior. Dramabell's units for the Roman empires in Attila are significantly better quality than the ones in the base game.

And still, I do not think you understand my point. I struggle to say my point in an even more simplified manner so that you might actually understand it, but I feel like that would be a waste of time because i am almost positive you will just nitpick the most basic and obnoxiously simple semantics issues.

Yes, CA insists that you pay for the DLC, unless you don't want them. This is opposed to the higher quality mods that do not make you pay for them, even if you want them. I didn't think I needed to finish that sentence, because I thought everybody here was a fully functioning human being capable of using context clues to understand that CA aren't literally rounding people up and putting them into concentration camps and forcing them to purchase DLC. But, since of course I was mistaken, let me clarify: CA are not literally rounding people up and putting them into concentration camps and forcing them to purchase DLC.

As for the quality, I don't see how any of those things improve the game. Descriptions are important for immersion, because without a description, a new technology is literally just a different colored square with a different name. Which, I suppose, may interest you, but it does not interest me. Same for buildings, and especially same for units. The majority of unit packs add very, very little new content, the rest is simply rearranged assets already used in game. I've never looked at the objectives screen, so I can't comment on that.

Let me try a metaphor, those are easy to understand.

If I am at a burger restaurant, and they try to sell me tomatoes, when instead I can walk outside and get a better, tastier, juicier, bigger tomato from some guy on the side of the street for free, Im not going to buy the restaurant's tomatoes. It would cost them very little to get better tomatoes, and it would benefit everyone if they did. Everyone would enjoy having better tomatoes. They aren't entitled to better tomatoes, and they aren't required to purchase tomatoes, but at the very least they benefit by not hearing all the whining people do about poor quality tomatoes, and in fact may actually be interested in purchasing the tomatoes if they are better.

By "Tomatoes" I mean "DLC." Just so we're clear.

[PointOfViewGun]

I do not care about the opening post, I am not the OP.

CA provides tools. Wonderful. People make loads of free content with those tools. Also wonderful. Also, irrelevant, save for the fact that much of that free content is superior. Dramabell's units for the Roman empires in Attila are significantly better quality than the ones in the base game.

And still, I do not think you understand my point. I struggle to say my point in an even more simplified manner so that you might actually understand it, but I feel like that would be a waste of time because i am almost positive you will just nitpick the most basic and obnoxiously simple semantics issues.

Yes, CA insists that you pay for the DLC, unless you don't want them. This is opposed to the higher quality mods that do not make you pay for them, even if you want them. I didn't think I needed to finish that sentence, because I thought everybody here was a fully functioning human being capable of using context clues to understand that CA aren't literally rounding people up and putting them into concentration camps and forcing them to purchase DLC. But, since of course I was mistaken, let me clarify: CA are not literally rounding people up and putting them into concentration camps and forcing them to purchase DLC.

As for the quality, I don't see how any of those things improve the game. Descriptions are important for immersion, because without a description, a new technology is literally just a different colored square with a different name. Which, I suppose, may interest you, but it does not interest me. Same for buildings, and especially same for units. The majority of unit packs add very, very little new content, the rest is simply rearranged assets already used in game. I've never looked at the objectives screen, so I can't comment on that.

Let me try a metaphor, those are easy to understand.

If I am at a burger restaurant, and they try to sell me tomatoes, when instead I can walk outside and get a better, tastier, juicier, bigger tomato from some guy on the side of the street for free, Im not going to buy the restaurant's tomatoes. It would cost them very little to get better tomatoes, and it would benefit everyone if they did. Everyone would enjoy having better tomatoes. They aren't entitled to better tomatoes, and they aren't required to purchase tomatoes, but at the very least they benefit by not hearing all the whining people do about poor quality tomatoes, and in fact may actually be interested in purchasing the tomatoes if they are better.

By "Tomatoes" I mean "DLC." Just so we're clear.

The opening post is something you should care about as it determines the topic of the thread.

You're struggling to form a proper defense because you're not really addressing what I say properly. You're trying to pull the issue to something you think you can defend while I'm standing firm on what I've been talking all along. You keep calling CA providing tools to have people give you free mods irrelevant because it pretty much kills your entire argument. You're basically telling me that you're gonna ignore CA providing value that you love to you for free and whine about value that you don't like that they ask for money, meanwhile the value that you don't like is easily, as you suggest, substitutable with the value that you love. So, if you're gonna keep on accusing me of not understanding your points, first have the courtesy to address what I say when I address those very points.

In your quest to find anything against what I say, you're telling me that new factions, new units, new building chains and new technologies do not improve the game. But! The almighty unit description is a game changer... There isn't much I can say about that.

Your tomato analogy is actually a real life example. Anything you get in a burger from an average burger place does likely have a better alternative that would cost you less or none at all. Better buns. Better tomatoes. Better meat. Better pickles. Better lettuce. Better onions. Better ketchup. Better mayo. Better everything. Yet, you wouldn't go on and on about how they make you buy those stuff. To make this analogy worse for you, to make it more applicable you gotta talk about extra content. Things like extra sauce or bigger french fries.

[Tyso3]

Setekh, I really have to ask.


Are you trolling us? Or are you really like this?

[♘Top Hat Zebra]

I don't understand.

Is it just me, guys? Am I completely saying it wrong, or is he just misinterpreting it repeatedly, over and over, no matter how simple I say it?


Mods good.

Mods free.

DLC not free.

DLC not good.

Me want DLC good, so that me buy DLC. Me want DLC good, so that more mods be good. Me want DLC that add additional content that cannot be modded in, so that more mods can be made out of the new assets.



Im calling mod tools irrelevant because they are irrelevant. My point would remain the same even if we did not have mod tools. My point would remain the same even if CA made awesome, incredibly good expansion packs alongside the mediocre unit packs and faction expansions. Im not "struggling to form a defense" because Im not defending, because you are not making counter points. Im trying to explain that quality is better than not quality, which isn't something I thought needed to be explained.

Let's just take money out of the equation, okay? You seem to be fixating on the fact that DLC costs money, and that's not exactly what I am talking about. Even if CA's DLC were completely free, it still is not of very good quality. Radious for Attila has added something like 420 units so far, completely for free. Sure, some aren't particularly good, but on average they have more detail and more interesting characteristics, and an AOR system!. And look at Radious for Rome II! Look at DeI! Look at The Great War, for NTW, or the American Civil War mod for ETW, or EB, or Stainless Steel or Third Age. If CA's DLC were put out as mods, they would not be able to compete with those heavyweights. And that's if they were completely free!

What new building chains were added with DLC? You mean how some DLC factions have an extra building at the end of a certain chain, like the Spartans? Amazing. Game changer right there. Definitely couldn't be added by mods. What new technologies were added by DLC?

That's your defense of the DLC? Mediocre units made with assets stolen from other units, and slightly improving factions that mods already unlocked, locking them up, and then charging for them? Yeah, that's exactly what Im talking about. Poor DLC.

Add entirely new factions, like an Indian one.. Add new campaign, map expansions. Add units that use new animations, like flails or two-handed swords. That's what I want in a DLC, I want something that a mod couldn't already do.

The campaign expansions are alright, even if they are still not that impressive. CiG and HatG hardly compare to FotS. Still, much better than boring unit DLCs, because at least they actually add some unique content.

[scoicarius]

This discussion is going nowhere, so let's tidy it up a little.

There are several methods of adding content to a game:

• sequels -- for sale
• expansions -- for sale
• dlcs -- free or for sale
• patches -- free
• mods -- free

dlc simply means downloadable content, so presumably,
no one's against the idea of dlcs, and
no one's against the idea of for-sale dlcs.

Then what are people against?

From what I understand, people are against:

(1) low-quality for-sale dlcs, so having to pay for low-quality content
(2) dlcs perceived as too expensive for what they offer, so having to pay too much for content
(3) dlcs as artificial scarcity

(Feel free to add to the list if I'm missing something.)

By "dlcs as artificial scarcity" I mean the practice of making a full game and then artificially selling it by pieces. This is the premise of the initial post.

With the recent trend of CA and other game companies to split their games into pieces to be able to sold more dlcs after , CD project did take the inverse route and do it the old way ... Release a full game completed and only release expansions for sale .

Will CA this time release a full game or instead we will see the usual annoying dlcs lile , download the orc faction , download the other magic dlc and so on?

I must say I am really tired to see this in modern games and I really enjoyed what CDp did ... I hope that this time CA too takes the old way route and release a fully finished product and make expansions not dlcs for enlarging the game after.

Does CA really engage in this practice? I don't know, and I don't think there's any way of knowing without inside information from CA, so it's an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

Carry on.

[PointOfViewGun]

Im calling mod tools irrelevant because they are irrelevant. My point would remain the same even if we did not have mod tools. My point would remain the same even if CA made awesome, incredibly good expansion packs alongside the mediocre unit packs and faction expansions. Im not "struggling to form a defense" because Im not defending, because you are not making counter points. Im trying to explain that quality is better than not quality, which isn't something I thought needed to be explained.

Let's just take money out of the equation, okay? You seem to be fixating on the fact that DLC costs money, and that's not exactly what I am talking about. Even if CA's DLC were completely free, it still is not of very good quality. Radious for Attila has added something like 420 units so far, completely for free. Sure, some aren't particularly good, but on average they have more detail and more interesting characteristics, and an AOR system!. And look at Radious for Rome II! Look at DeI! Look at The Great War, for NTW, or the American Civil War mod for ETW, or EB, or Stainless Steel or Third Age. If CA's DLC were put out as mods, they would not be able to compete with those heavyweights. And that's if they were completely free!

What new building chains were added with DLC? You mean how some DLC factions have an extra building at the end of a certain chain, like the Spartans? Amazing. Game changer right there. Definitely couldn't be added by mods. What new technologies were added by DLC?

That's your defense of the DLC? Mediocre units made with assets stolen from other units, and slightly improving factions that mods already unlocked, locking them up, and then charging for them? Yeah, that's exactly what Im talking about. Poor DLC.

Add entirely new factions, like an Indian one.. Add new campaign, map expansions. Add units that use new animations, like flails or two-handed swords. That's what I want in a DLC, I want something that a mod couldn't already do.

The campaign expansions are alright, even if they are still not that impressive. CiG and HatG hardly compare to FotS. Still, much better than boring unit DLCs, because at least they actually add some unique content.

You're just hellbent on ignoring and distorting whatever that doesn't suit you. Which is why you're still not addressing what I say. You might have been talking about B but you've also talked about A. A is what I criticized most about. You can either acknowledge that and move or you can whine like this endlessly throwing your hands in the air wondering what you do wrong.

It's normal that you call mods irrelevant as much as you do as if you acknowledged their value for what it is you wouldn't be able to say that CA insists on making you pay for its DLCs. To bring it back to my initial point against that initial statement of yours; CA provides a lot, free or not, mostly free though, for you to choose from. They can't be providing the tools to get you free stuff and still be accused of insisting on making you pay them.

The most, perhaps the only, valid point you have is about them locking factions for mods that they themselves published. They still have a right to do that. What you need to acknowledge is that you didn't buy every single 0 and 1 in your computer. What you had so far in terms of mods were entirely extra and out of their own good will. That's a fact.

Black Sea Colonies DLC added, in total, 10 new buildings, not one. Pirates and Raiders DLC also added a lot as it also had a new religion added to the game which required a completely new religious building chain. The fact that you're talking about CA stealing assets is a sign enough to show that you don't really have a case so you rely on such nonsense to come of as having one.

FotS cost about $30 when it first came out. CiG and HatG costs $15.

(1) low-quality for-sale dlcs, so having to pay for low-quality content
(2) dlcs perceived as too expensive, so having to pay too much for content
(3) dlcs as artificial scarcity

This is the attitude that I have a beef with. You don't have to pay for anything. It's all extra content. If you find it low in quality or expensive then just move on. If you guys don't get that simple fact than you will argue about it endlessly for no valid reason.

[scoicarius]

This is the attitude that I have a beef with. You don't have to pay for anything. It's all extra content. If you find it low in quality or expensive then just move on. If you guys don't get that simple fact than you will argue about it endlessly for no valid reason.

Your (implicit) argument is of this form:

CA makes extra content.
The content is optional.
Therefore there's no point evaluating its quality.

The point of those criticizing CA on the other hand is that evaluating the quality of the content in this case matters.

CA makes extra content -- ok
CA makes extra content and charges for it -- ok
CA makes extra content and charges too much for it -- not ok
CA makes poor quality extra content and charges for it -- not ok
CA makes poor quality extra content and charges too much for it -- not ok

From what I understand, people are against:

(1) low-quality for-sale dlcs, so having to pay for low-quality content
(2) dlcs perceived as too expensive for what they offer, so having to pay too much for content

In this case they are evaluating two things: an action, and a practice. The action of charging for low-quality content, and of artificially charging too much for content, and the practice of engaging in those actions, practice which reflects badly on those who engage in them.

[♘Top Hat Zebra]

Somehow, incredibly, still missing the point.

Everything you just said, pretend you didn't say it. Pretend no one has ever said anything. Okay, great, good starting point here.

Mods are not content that CA provides for free. Modding tools are content that CA provides for free. Mods are created by other people.

DLC is content that CA creates, and they charge for it. By and large, the majority of it is of lesser quality than mods.

Here is the crucial part that you are amazingly still not understanding. I do not care about the fact that they charge for DLC. I care about the fact that the DLC is poor quality. I have never cared that they charge for DLC, I have never talked about "A", you misunderstood what I said. Which I have said, repeatedly.

You do have to pay for DLC. You have to pay for DLC. Like, you have to pay for food. You have to pay for gas. Obviously, to anyone who speaks English, that does not mean they are literally forcing you to pay. That means that, in order to acquire the good or service we are speaking of, you are required to pay a sum of money. Yes? You understand that people have to pay for certain things if you want them? Are we clear on what we're talking about now?


CA makes some good DLC, at least relative to other DLC. CiG was a good enough campaign DLC, added a new map, and seasons, and all sorts of other things. FotS, or Kingdoms, were great expansion packs, that added too many things to list.


I did not mean literally stealing, as in putting on mask and carrying around a bag with a dollar sign on it. Stealing, as in taking from other unit assets and mixing them together to create a new unit. Not impressive.

Do you only speak in pure, literal semantic terms? Are a robot? Is English your native language? That is a genuine question, because you seem to be misunderstanding basic figures of speech.


And with your last statement, I think we come to the crux of the matter. You see CA making poor DLC, and you think, "Well that sucks, I don't want that." I see CA making poor DLC and I think, "Well, you guys can do better than that."

I would rather pay for Fall of the Samurai quality expansion packs, than get Daughters of Mars quality unit packs for free. Since they insist on charging for basic things like unit packs or faction unlocks, things that modders are perfectly capable of doing right now at this very moment, I want them do at least make those things as high quality as modders make them.


Okay, just to reiterate.

We have to pay for DLC if we want DLC.

We do not have to pay for DLC if we do not want DLC, but obviously this is irrelevant to the conversation.

We do not have to pay for mods.

I, and many people around here, and many people in general at least according to Steam reviews, consider modders to make higher quality content than CA DLC.

I, and, I assume, many people around here, have accepted that DLC is a part of basic video game business now. Great, I love the idea.

I, and I assume, many people around here, wish that CA would create higher quality content, rather than not creating higher quality content. I would purchase the DLC if the DLC were good. I want the DLC to be good, because these games would be much better with good DLC.


Yes? No? Are we in agreement? Better is better than not better, right?