Explore GameReplays...

Company of Heroes 2

CoH2 Premium? (hint)

Reply to this topic Start new topic
# 81Regret Sep 23 2012, 18:41 PM
QUOTE(TychoCelchuuu @ Sep 23 2012, 19:09 PM) *

I think the reason we're worried is because Relic probably wouldn't categorize Tales of Valor as "pay2win" either. In their mind, the T-17 and the Kangaroo Carrier are just alternative units, not advantages that you can buy for money. From our perspective, though, since these are broken and OP, it seems like pay2win, even if that's not Relic's intention. Similarly, if CoH 2 has units that you can buy that are designed to be alternative units that aren't more or less powerful, but Relic is as bad at balancing as it usually is, some of these units are bound to be OP, and buying them will mean that the player is at an advantage, which seems a lot like pay2win.


Not to mention a developer that has a game that is pay2win is never going admit that.

World of Tanks for example has gold rounds, ammunition that can only be brought with RL monies and gives insane bonuses like increased armour penetration / damage. Two identical tanks face off 1v1, gold round tank will win 99.99% of the time. Purest form of pay2win I can think of, but wargaming will never admit it.

Posts: 212

Game: Company of Heroes


+
# 82AnthonyDraft Sep 23 2012, 20:11 PM
Please no paid Map Packs for CoH2. Please!

Posts: 146

Game: Dawn of War 2


+
# 83steger Sep 23 2012, 23:11 PM
Thanks THQLynx.

My mind is at ease regarding "pay to win" smile.gif

PS. I would consider paying for official mappacks.

Posts: 216

Game: Company of Heroes


+
# 84pathfindergold Sep 24 2012, 03:00 AM
Freshman in college here and honestly, I would pay $10 to buy extra maps or an extra campaign DLC to support THQ. They make a good game so I'm going to support their business.

Posts: 79

Game: Company of Heroes 2


+
# 85Mengano Sep 24 2012, 12:54 PM
QUOTE(pathfindergold @ Sep 24 2012, 03:00 AM) *

Freshman in college here and honestly, I would pay $10 to buy extra maps or an extra campaign DLC to support THQ. They make a good game so I'm going to support their business.

Support them buying complete games.

DLCs are the cancer of the gaming industry.

PD: Just to clarify. Not long ago, only good games with a large community would get "expansions".
They were designed long time after the game was out, and only if the game was a success.
That is the right DLC content. Those released much later than the original game and whose only purpose is prolongate the life of that game.

Nowadays, even crappy games that no one likes get tons of cheap DLCs, just because they were designed at the same time that the original game, and in fact, they're pieces of that original game that were cut from it just for selling it later and make more profit.
They're selling us pieces of a game that you have already payed. No one should support that shameful practices.

If you have ALREADY maps for the game, include all them in the original game. Make it worth of every penny of its price. Trying to selling us later is a complete rip off.

Make a whole and full game. Wait for it being a success, and when a proper time passes, launch then DLCs to revitalise that game.
No one will complain then.

This post has been edited by Mengano: Sep 24 2012, 16:42 PM

Posts: 135

Game: Company of Heroes


+
# 86bauru Sep 24 2012, 15:16 PM
About the Pay for maps issue, I would like to make some considerations:

When the last patch came out, 2.602, the current maps was fixed mostly by KOLARIS, a community member which I'm never tired to thank him for what he did at the patching process.

Bottom line: Relic was not giving a damn about maps at all

Also, COH's patching process, as I record (essentially after TOV) was very slow and made with low resources, apparently.


So, out of the suddenly they came with this pay for maps concept, saying now they care about maps?

Well, I'll keep insisting that the best way to keep the game going well is permanently employ:

1 - a couple of DEV's patching, changing the meta-game, fixing bugs, keeping on anti-cheaters measures, etc ...
2 - Another guy to do what Thunders does: keeping one eye at the community and another at the quasar servers.
3 - Someone else to keep the marketing and support along


Well, I re-affirm that the best and well tested model to avoid pay2win, dlc, pay4maps, is to charge a fair monthly fee, as blizzard does.

Posts: 205

Game: Company of Heroes


+
# 87Auron. Sep 24 2012, 22:53 PM
QUOTE
Gears of war, cod, battlefield players all pay 15 dollars for map packs is the coh community really that poor/uninterested? Hell, half of the cod population is under the age of 15 and they still find a way to throw down for all the map packs...


This is a disgrace of a comment, if you don't think there's anything wrong with the cash cow motto of activision you're a seriously deranged individual or has never known better(modding and mapping communities in pc gaming that we've always had.).


QUOTE
Well, I re-affirm that the best and well tested model to avoid pay2win, dlc, pay4maps, is to charge a fair monthly fee, as blizzard does.


lolwat? Starcraft gets by with no subscription model, as did all other rts since the foundation of the genre with no need for pay2win and usually no more than one expansion.

This post has been edited by Auron.: Sep 24 2012, 22:59 PM

Posts: 2,975

Game: Dawn of War 3


+
# 88IpKaiFung Sep 24 2012, 23:05 PM
I do miss the old days of just buying a game and that was it. The only company that still does that is Nintendo but they haven't sold that many games this generation.

Oh wait... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-...Wii_video_games http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-..._DS_video_games

However the best way to deal with DLC imho is just to simply not purchase any.

Posts: 5,395

Game: Dawn of War 3


+
# 89Regret Sep 24 2012, 23:26 PM
QUOTE(IpKaiFung @ Sep 25 2012, 00:05 AM) *

However the best way to deal with DLC imho is just to simply not purchase any.


If they did DLC right and not exploit the fuck out of their consumers, I'd love DLC. : /

Keep DLC cheap, cosmetic and don't lock modding out of your game and everyone wins. People who buy the game and don't want to pay for DLC down the line still get a complete experience.

For example, if CoH originally shipped with a skin store that sold unit skins for say, 0.50p each and not some insane 2-3 each, I know I'd probably have brought all the skins for every faction by now. People who had no interest in skins could still mod and get fan made stuff, while people willing to pay could show off their skins to opponents, ect. No one is separated by paywalls.

This is how DLC should be imo.

I honestly don't think CoH would have been nearly as popular if they included the stuff they've announced in CoH2 in the original CoH.

Posts: 212

Game: Company of Heroes


+
# 90IpKaiFung Sep 24 2012, 23:39 PM
Doing DLC right is a totally subjective notion. People will complain just because they can due to the internet being an open mouthpiece. Take the recent Bayonetta 2 shit storm where the developers were sent death threats and nuclear bomb threats.

I personally would prefer no more DLC at all but it seems to sell well so publishers aren't going to be dumping that model for the foreseeable future.

That being said no one fully knows THQ's DLC plans for CoH2 nor do we know about modding for CoH2 so I'm not going to lose my shit over it.

Posts: 5,395

Game: Dawn of War 3


+
# 91Regret Sep 24 2012, 23:58 PM
What was the Bayonetta drama over? I watched a mailbox that mentioned it was going to be the new Wii exclusive, I assume that what it's about?

Though I too would prefer no DLC, I have no problem with DLC that is purely cosmetic. If that means they'll keep patching and support the game longer, I'm all for it.

Yeah, same, but the little they've confirmed (paid maps, some form of subscription, unit boosts) is enough to almost make me "loose my shit". tongue.gif You can say "I told you so" if I'm wrong when more details come forth.

Posts: 212

Game: Company of Heroes


+
# 92Alexander Begg Sep 25 2012, 00:31 AM
QUOTE(Inverse @ Sep 20 2012, 21:03 PM) *

There's a slight discrepancy on this page: http://www.companyofheroes.com/preorder-detail

Does the preorder from the shopTHQ store include beta access? Because that graphic makes it look like it doesn't.


Hi there.
I am glad to see Thq giving some frontline response to this matter.
I was just looking to get to the core of this post, went to the website.. and not thinking pushed submit to the wrong age of birth.
1 mistake and I am picking up my IP has been blocked from the website.

Just what kind of ratio of people are going to make that mistake? Probably quite a few!
Does anyone know if that gets reset?

Posts: 301

Game: Kings and Castles


+
# 93Marcus2389 Sep 25 2012, 08:47 AM
Just delete cookies? tongue.gif

Posts: 2,372

Game: Company of Heroes 2


+
# 94Beina Sep 25 2012, 11:22 AM
so,

Pay for maps
Pay for other DLC
Prolly pay for special OP units.
Units Freezing if no fire,
Making fires,
Lose army to ice breaking.
Slow movement
Relics history of not caring about cheats AND Making it extreamly difficult and time consuming for GR Staff to get them banned.
Relic has never been able to balance a game. mark my words COH2 will be 2 years of abuse.

Look, I'll buy your fucking game. But im disapointed.

Posts: 615

Game: Battlefield 1943


+
# 95RagingJenni Sep 25 2012, 13:00 PM
"Prolly pay for special OP units."

Read the thread before making stupid comments. They've said 5-6 times that DLC will not give unfair advantages.

Furthermore, think of DLC this way; if you buy DLC, you support relic to continuously support the game. They can keep patching for years and they case of "higher ups" telling them to stop patching the game and focus on newer projects, will likely not happen if the game is still pulling a profit and expanding its player base.

How many maps do you think will be release? I think there will be 10, maybe 20 spent on maps if you want them. It's simple to not fracture the community by having pay4maps; just Let the system check if the 2 players who are facing each other (in a 1v1) have the buyable maps, if one dont, they play on regular maps. It shouldn't be too hard to fix.

And complaining about cosmetic DLC is the stupidest shit ever if you get a game and feel that it had content removed just to sell DLC (Shogun2 *cough*) then by all right, complain. But if it is cosmetic DLC made after the game was released, to give to those who wanted to spend more money on the game, then there is no problem as long as it's a choice.

Posts: 2,925

Game: Company of Heroes


+
# 96Beina Sep 25 2012, 14:07 PM
aww yeah, so the hellcat vs m10 in 2.601 was fair was it? the roo aswell?

The plan is for it not to be unfair, but that unit better have the same dps stats than its other version twin brother. so it other words.. same unit but looks different.... so why would u pay for it... you wouldnt.

How about you play the game b4 speaking.

Posts: 615

Game: Battlefield 1943


+
# 97QuagmireNL Sep 25 2012, 14:12 PM
QUOTE(Beina @ Sep 25 2012, 14:07 PM) *

How about you play the game b4 speaking.


That settles the discussion, nobody say anything negative or positive anymore until we played it!

Posts: 466

Game: Company of Heroes


+
# 98Regret Sep 25 2012, 15:26 PM
QUOTE(RagingJenni @ Sep 25 2012, 14:00 PM) *

Read the thread before making stupid comments. They've said 5-6 times that DLC will not give unfair advantages.


I know right, and a company will never lie about this kind of thing! It's gospel! Why, those balances issues we had for years in OF / ToV, why, those were features!

Point in fact, I have no doubt they'll begin selling alternate unit DLC's like Roo's, Stags, ect. They might be intended to be sidegrades but because Relic has proven time and again they can't balance for shit, DLC units will inevitably give "unfair advantages"; at least for the first few months (years).

Come on, you really can't be that naive? Where have you been the last half a decade?

This post has been edited by Regret: Sep 25 2012, 15:31 PM

Posts: 212

Game: Company of Heroes


+
# 99isildur21367 Sep 25 2012, 15:51 PM
Clearly a lot of angst here in this forum regarding Relic's foray into DLC. I have some thoughts that maybe explain why they are doing what they are doing.

I've been in the financial community for a long time and have a deep understanding of the economics of this industry. There is a reason THQ/Relic is attempting to do what they are planning to with COH2. First, the entire industry is moving towards online and F2P and THQ is just starting to follow this trend. The business model they had for the past 10 years just isn't working and they need radical change. You "old timers" like me that are used to PC games for $50 that come with unlimited free multiplayer forever and no DLC, are going to be in for a shock in the coming years. This model is broken. For the most part (not everything of course), the PC industry will move to F2P with persistent online connections. The days of just selling the "client" upfront are coming to an end for AAA PC games. Instead it will be about monetizing the "tail" via F2P. There might also be hybrid approaches where you sell both a client+F2P, but ultimately the model is changing and its changing quickly.

A few points:
1. First, the company THQ is near bankruptcy. THQ has $21M of cash left and depending on how their lineup does over the next 6-9 months, it will "make or break" them. THQ is expected to continue to burn through cash this year so its going to be down to wire if they make it or not.
2. THQ has restructured significantly in the past two years. They are now down to 4 studios (Relic, Volition, Vigil, and Montreal) they used to have 11. They had to shut down all of their licensed game studios and kids studios and MMO studios. Vigil also probably next on the chopping block b/c Darksiders 2 hasn't been a hit and the future of a single player console game developer is bleak. That leaves Relic, Volition, and Montreal. I'll discuss each of these studios. Volition makes Saints Row. This is the main cash cow for THQ. Saints Row 3 comes out sometime next year. They need this game to be a hit or else its pretty much over for THQ. Without the cashflow from Saints Row, its literally lights out for THQ. As for Montreal, this studio hasn't made a game yet and is consuming cash. This is the studio headed up by the ex-Ubisoft creator of Assassins Creed. This is a 'Hail Mary' bet that he can create a blockbuster console game. THQ therefore needs cash in this interim period, to keep funding development. Which therefore leads us with Relic.
3. Relic. Relic of course is primarily a RTS and PC focused studio. While in the past they have made high quality games, it hasn't really been a financial homerun like Volition. Relic also hasn't necessarily been a drag like the other studios that THQ shut down. The problem is that the market for AAA RTS PC games isn't that great. It's in effect a niche market. You might not lose your shirt, but the sales also won't save the company. In addition, the investors are also looking at the F2P business model and wondering why on God's earth isn't THQ deploying this model. Everyone knows how successful League of Legends has been. Estimates put LoL now generating upwards of $500M in revenue this year (this is a global sales figure where China is a large portion of this). Relic is viewed as a developer that can potentially also do something like what Riot Games has done with LoL. Of course a WW2 strategy RTS game is quite different than a DOTA clone, but the monetization elements of selling cosmetic F2P items is applicable. Why not try to take some of these elements and bring them into COH2? THQ needs to show investors that it too can operate a successful online game with F2P elements. THQ also in the short term need some upfront sales from COH2 to help them stay afloat. So on one hand they need the cash from selling a $50 game upfront, but they also need to show investors that there is a long-term recurring revenue stream from selling F2P items.
4. Business model choice. The one criticism here that is valid is the one that compares what COH2 is trying to do vs. what LoL is doing. LoL is a true F2P game. It costs nothing to play the game and only if you want to buy certain heroes or cosmetic items does it cost you. COH2 is taking a hybrid approach. In fact, what COH2 is trying to do is closest to what Guild Wars 2 is doing. GW2 is selling the client for $60, but then the game is free thereafter (no monthly fee like WoW). However, GW2 is also selling F2P items like XP boosts and cosmetic items. I've spoken with NCSoft which is publishing the game and the item sales so far have been "very good" and exceeding their initial expectations. Relic here is trying to do the exact same thing. They want to sell you the 'client' for $60 and then also monetize the 'tail' with F2P items just like GW2. Is this double taxation? Yes. But, since THQ is in such terrible financial shape, they need the upfront cash from selling the game for $60 PLUS they need the recurring revenue stream from running a persistent online game that has F2P elements. If GW2 can do it, why not COH2? Even the mighty Starcraft 2 is thinking about going to F2P. After they sold the initial game there has been effectively ZERO revenues coming in. Activision isn't stupid and they see what other games are doing and that's why there is talk that even SC2 will likely add F2P elements to the game in the future. Sure they (game publishers) all want to double dip. Should they be criticized for this? Maybe, but changing economics of the game industry is forcing these decisions. Sometimes these decisions are made out of financial necessity and there is also now precedent of other games doing exactly this. This is going to be more of the norm than exception going forward.
5. Does F2P kill game balance? Great question. I think just have to take Relic's word that they won't disrupt the PVP multiplayer balance with the F2P items.

I'm not trying to say whether the decisions Relic is taking is right or wrong, but just explaining some of the potential motivations for their decisions. Bottom line here is that Relic is a business and they need a sustainable business model to support them going forward. The business model that many of us were used to in the past, just doesn't apply anymore in this new age of F2P, piracy, and increased platform competition. Relic/THQ needs to adapt or they won't be around any more.





Posts: 119

Game: Company of Heroes


+
# 100schepp himself Sep 25 2012, 16:54 PM
^this was a good post!

And honestly, it is rather unfair when you get 200 hours or 5 hours of fun our of a product which always costs 50/$. A little bit like a "all you can eat" product. A half-starved fatty gets a very good deal for 15$, a skinny guy who just wants a snack not so much.

I have faith however that a pay-2-win approach will be a disaster for serious competitive RTS-gaming financially and therefore will not happen for CoH2.

Greets
Schepp himself



Posts: 702

Game: Company of Heroes


+

2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)