That says some not so flattering things about both the developers and the people who buy the dlcs.The problem is that campaign only dlc wont sell as good as multiplayer interfering one.
That says some not so flattering things about both the developers and the people who buy the dlcs.The problem is that campaign only dlc wont sell as good as multiplayer interfering one.
What does it say exactly? People playing mainly MP wouldn't want to buy a purely campaign DLC. What is wrong with that?That says some not so flattering things about both the developers and the people who buy the dlcs.
The DLCs don't really add much to multiplayer. The strongest justification for them and most actual value added is the singleplayer content.What does it say exactly? People playing mainly MP wouldn't want to buy a purely campaign DLC. What is wrong with that?
I meant what unflattering things does it say? Any DLC which adds civs will shake up the balance a lot and it'll take time and effort from the part of the devs to make the civ not OP and not UP after they're released; which they won't have if they're jumping into making the next DLC. Civs are also singleplayer content, they're an new civ to play vs the AI and make scenarios with.The DLCs don't really add much to multiplayer. The strongest justification for them and most actual value added is the singleplayer content.
Well like how they are again adding civs that aren't really needed (you make a good point about the SP content part but the marginal value is still low because of how many there already are) despite there being so many problems with the game that never seem to get satisfactorily fixed.I meant what unflattering things does it say? Any DLC which adds civs will shake up the balance a lot and it'll take time and effort from the part of the devs to make the civ not OP and not UP after they're released; which they won't have if they're jumping into making the next DLC. Civs are also singleplayer content, they're an new civ to play vs the AI and make scenarios with.
Hopefully this is the last addition of civs and the devs focus on balance after this. I'm sure MS won't want AoE2 stealing AoE4's thunder when it launches, especially considering there are barely enough differences to call it a separate game on its own.
I don't understand people wanting throw more money at MS and the devs but since it seems from these expansions that there are plenty of them, they should consider adding a donate button on steam and not messing with the game by adding civs so it can finally reach a state of balance. I don't think there are any more bonuses and distinctive features to be added to civs anymore and they're gonna have to scrape the bottom of the barrel and cannibalize more stuff from AoE3.
The fact that more and more civs are using cannibalized AoE3 features just shows that MS just wants to milk the name and the engine and nothing more.
Why on earth would they bother spending time and money doing balance changes when they can make more money doing DLCs??? People seem to be labouring under the illusion that MS is some kind of charity that does everything out the kindness of their heart rather than to make money.
I don't mind keep buying expansions, as long as they fix the game, Pathing, game stability, restore function, anti cheating and more
I'm not saying it should be like that. I saie it is like that. Plus, i really like having new civs. So I like the idea of the DLC. I just don't like the way the game is brokenShouldn't base game have this already? Why should we be grateful that they're charging us extra to develop the game like it should've already been since release in first place? It's like holding the game hostage and charging us more to have the full game. And when you thank them for that, that's called stockholm syndrome.
Shouldn't base game have this already? Why should we be grateful that they're charging us extra to develop the game like it should've already been since release in first place? It's like holding the game hostage and charging us more to have the full game. And when you thank them for that, that's called stockholm syndrome.
Not sure those subsets are completely distinct. I complain about it in part because of how it made single player less enjoyable. When I decided to try playing through campaigns again I went back to HD so my eyes didn't have to bleed looking at the terrible "remastered" graphics.The end result is a general subset of the population is happy to continue to wag the dog because it's their favorite game from childhood, and/or don't play "competitively," but passively on single player or at levels you might not notice. However, there is a distinct subset of humans with the ability to recognize the heist occurring, and poor product issued to them in a second re-release of the same game they've been playing for decades (and thus have a pretty good idea of how it should work.) Thus, unsurprisingly, they enjoy venting about it -- even if powerless to influence any actual change.
Sorry it wasn't my intention to put blame on you for that. Just wanted to make people aware of such fact.I'm not saying it should be like that. I saie it is like that. Plus, i really like having new civs. So I like the idea of the DLC. I just don't like the way the game is broken
No offense taken, man. But thanks fot the apology anywaySorry it wasn't my intention to put blame on you for that. Just wanted to make people aware of such fact.