Getting so sick of this community

[Shacck]

I just read some of the reviews for this title and I have to say rarely do I come across a more self-absorbed, egotistical, ill informed and almost childlike community than in this space.

There are people unironically celebrating the fact that this game has negative reviews, they call for developers to ''Hopefully lose their job''.... that's a direct quote from a review, and these perpetulant manchildren are then underscoring their idiotic ideas with the fact that Bulders Gate 3 was really good... and that CA should take note from Baldurs Gate 3....

are you guys just really stupid or is there some deeper motive behind this bullsh*t campaign against CA?

It's just painfully obvious that there are far too many idiots out there these days that will buy literally EVERY single game that's coming out only to complain about 99% of them... can you go the f*ck outside for a bit please? Jesus christ! You don't need to own every single game.... you don't need to play every single game.... not every single game was made for you!!! Why the f*ck this needs to explained to these simpletons is beyond me.

What kind of moron, buys Attila... says that's garbage... buys Troy, says that's garbage too and then posts a review of Pharaoh complaining there isn't enough exciting stuff in there? The kind of moron you'll find in this community... APPARENTLY!

What kind of imbecilic, literally half brain dead preschooler can't comprehend that these games aren't Warhammer? Seriously, all you pathetic losers step the f*ck up right now and let's hear your reasoning for that retar*ded attitude. Why the f*ck do you keep buying games that are clearly too slow or historical for your tiny ass brain? If you're part of that 250 character twitter generation that needs INSTANT/CONSTANT gratification with zero imput of your own and you literally can't go 30 seconds without some rainbow-colored explosion in their face then why the f*ck are you here? Why the f*ck are these borderland freaks buying and then complaining about Total war not being exciting enough?

How many times do I need to be dropped on my head to attempt the comparison between Baldurs Gate 3 and Pharaoh... give me a number?! Holy sh*t

How stupid are you to assume that TW devs will pay any attention to the community and what they want if the community is this f*cking pathetic?
They won't... and that's why you'll never get the game you want... becasue no game can ever live up to that rediculous standard you've deluded yourself into thinking is normal and no Dev will ever listen to POS complaints along the lines off ''why aren't you Baldurs gate 3 hurrr durr''... no! the devs will just switch off and leave this bullsh*t francise because developing for mental children isn't what anybody wants.

Literally... every second forum post is just this ''NO DLC'' CRY CRY CRY insert pic of crying babyface... get a f*cking grip! ffs

[Myrden]

Originally posted by Khalifa:

And if they zoomed out to include ALL of eurasia and africa in the same game - it would still be without cavalry, infantry focused, and so on.

Far better replay value though, I'd certainly be tempted if that was the case.

[Andra]

Originally posted by Myrden:

Originally posted by Khalifa:

And if they zoomed out to include ALL of eurasia and africa in the same game - it would still be without cavalry, infantry focused, and so on.

Far better replay value though, I'd certainly be tempted if that was the case.

Better replay value than what? If you make the pond a mile wide, it will only be an inch deep.
Pharaoh intentionally does the opposite, so again it comes back to preference.
The replay value in Pharaoh -for me- is the legacies, the different strategic paths, courts, and campaign settings, different religions, terrains, native units, etc etc.
I would assume that a game that decided to span a global set of bronze age cultures would be severely lacking in this kind of depth, and it would feel same-y as people bring up about M2, for example.
It comes back to preferrence, again. Not quality being an absolute.

[Myrden]

Originally posted by Khalifa:

Originally posted by Myrden:

Far better replay value though, I'd certainly be tempted if that was the case.

Better replay value than what? If you make the pond a mile wide, it will only be an inch deep.
Pharaoh intentionally does the opposite, so again it comes back to preference.
The replay value in Pharaoh -for me- is the legacies, the different strategic paths, courts, and campaign settings, different religions, terrains, native units, etc etc.
I would assume that a game that decided to span a global set of bronze age cultures would be severely lacking in this kind of depth, and it would feel same-y as people bring up about M2, for example.
It comes back to preferrence, again. Not quality being an absolute.

I imagined that in your suggested TW, the land was populated with different cultures with a wide array of different starting points, resources, etc. I'm not sure I agree with your pond only being an inch deep either; to what are we determining that from?

I do agree with your last part though, in that all any of this is, is preference. Neither of us can be wrong here; it's just a chat about what we prefer. You happen to like this game and that's great, man, and I'm genuinely happy for you. I'd love to find a new TW game that does that for me so I'll just keep hanging around the forums in the hope that this happens.

[Andra]

Originally posted by Myrden:

I imagined that in your suggested TW, the land was populated with different cultures with a wide array of different starting points, resources, etc. I'm not sure I agree with your pond only being an inch deep either; to what are we determining that from?

The expression is to mean that you can never do everything perfectly,so make priorities.
If you have a set amount of water (read:resources,staff,and time in CA Sofia's case) you can either make a mile wide lake that is 1 inch deep, or a very deep water well.
The 1 inch deep lake in this case would be the global scope game you prefer for replayability. CA Sofia *could* make that, but it wouldn't have the depth and innovations that Pharaoh chose to focus on - and had liberty to focus on by being an Egypt-centric game, which is my preference. One is not better than the other, but Pharaoh has very,very clearly been a narrow scope from day 1, and marketed as such.
I don't know about you, but i think it's fair to say that people who flood the forums and rage against CA Sofia with arguments about game engine, period, scope, etc - are just picketing,protesting,boycotting and raging against a game they will never like anyway - because their arguments are empty. We agree, it comes down to preference.

IIRC it was you that said at one point that mortality and succession would make the game more interesting to buy? - whoever it was, guess who's still not going to buy it now that the development of Pharaoh has been redirected to include that. It's an easily movable goalpost for whoever pretends to be on the fence like this, and there will always be one excuse or another there to move that goalpost. Uniforms are too vibrant, the battles don't feel like R2, etc etc - anything to resist changing their mind on the internet. If that's not the case for you, where is that line in your case where you will *definitely* pick it up?

[Myrden]

Originally posted by Khalifa:

If that's not the case for you, where is that line in your case where you will *definitely* pick it up?

I'm not sure there is a line tbh. I have no qualms with changing my mind on the internet - I really couldn't care less about what random strangers think of me. I've almost bought it a few times now so I dare say that eventually I will. There just really isn't anything about it that pulls me in.

[Killersnipe]

Originally posted by Khalifa:

Then its preference, and not a bad janky game engine or a 1:1 reskin etc, right?
As with the setting, in relation to the "its not M3" argument that understandably a lot more people want - but Pharaoh isn't a bad, broken game.

You fail to realize much of the hate was not directed at Pharaoh per se. It was more of a 'straw that broke the camels back' scenario. The Saga titles were not popular since the first one with ToB (this was basically CA trying to milk the fans and over saturate the market with Total War games instead of focusing on larger mainline titles with more replayability and longer lifespans). Also the greediness CA showed with both the price of Pharaoh at launch along with the newest WH3 dlc was another red line. Finally it was the setting itself that just didn't appeal to a lot of Total War fans. I personally think Shogun 2 TW is one of the best vanilla total war games but my best friend who is also a long time total war player never played it because he's personally not interested in Japanese history. Nothing I can therefore say to him will convince him to try Shogun 2. He wants to play and roleplay in European medieval and ancient warfare specifically. That's his personal preference.

We saw from the very first announcement trailer for Pharaoh (before any gameplay was even revealed) that there was a lack of interest in the period and focus, from a large portion of the Total War community. So a lot of the criticism and unpopularity has little to do with the gameplay mechanics of the game. CA failed to properly "read the room" when choosing the focus of this next game as well as how to market and price it.

Originally posted by Khalifa:

My point is the same for Legend; how does he declare it dead on arrival on it's second day and he hasnt touched it or played it, and extrapolates what he does from a few hours of troy early access?

Simple, he doesn't have to play it to make such a statement. Playing it may be required to make a review but he did not make a review. He simply looked at player numbers, and amount of people who purchased it and can make the claim that it did not have widespread popularity among majority of Total War fans and therefore is essentially dead on arrival. Low concurrent player numbers means dead multiplayer lobbies as well as means that less money was made from the sale of the base game, meaning less money available for producing dlc content, which also will sell less copies due to lower concurrent player numbers etc. This all leads to a dying game from the standpoint of a game studio which is interested in making money primarily.

Originally posted by Khalifa:

-and how he disliked ToB, right? It's silly! But yet, these are the main arguments against the game, the same as the youtubers covering CA have been saying since long before the game even released, as you pointed out.

He simply made a video stating features that were removed from Attila when it came to ToB. What I took away from his video is that he didn't like the campaign being simplified in ToB because he personally enjoyed a more complex campaign side of things. I don't necessarily agree with his position on everything. I didn't personally mind some simplified mechanics in ToB and I did like the new mustering mechanic that was implemented in that game (which I would like to see in more TW games personally). I did think the overall campaign was a bit boring after a while though merely due to the sameness of the British Isles and units in the different factions. I think they could have sold so many more copies of ToB if the game studio had allowed map modding because it could have been perfect for a GoT full conversion mod (but CA still refused to release map editing tools to their own detriment on that game)

Originally posted by Khalifa:

Vexing me the most tho is that it is such overwhelming hate that is based on preferrence that it is actively changing the game that me and others enjoy and bought this for. They're including mortality now,
DLC's are being pushed back, who knows what other changes in their plans are being done because of this community having an absolute meltdown.

Again, much of the hate is focused towards CA in general and at the direction they have been going, ignoring the majority of Total War communities feedback and overpricing that went too far. It was this criticism from the community that got you a refund on this game and made CA price it fairly. You have more money in your wallet AND still have the game because of the rest of the community that was unwilling to stand for CA treating us like garbage. And what's wrong with mortality? I'm sure there will be an option to keep them immortal if you want. This is the normal state of making improvements based on player feedback. Many historical fans were unhappy with immortal leaders and felt it was becoming too similar to Warhammer fantasy Total War games. If CA simply make it an option then it shouldn't effect you in the slightest as you can still play with immortal leaders (which, historically leaders, and humans in general, are not immortal).

Originally posted by Khalifa:

Because the arguments about the engine,style,period,scope etc always comes back to preference.

And what's your point? Eating sirloin steak vs bugs is also a preference. Both give humans the protein needed for survival. Yet I assume a lot of people would be unhappy to be forced to eat bugs. What matters is what the majority of the TW community wants and is willing to pay CA to play. If a game studio makes a game that almost no one wants to play then they will eventually go bankrupt. So it is not about what you personally like or what I personally don't like. It's about what the majority of Total War fans are willing to buy and play. The fact that Pharaoh has very low concurrent player numbers compared to even multiple older Total War games means that a majority of Total War players are not interested enough to go out and buy this new title. That is a failure on CA's market research department. They should be attempting to make games with wide appeal to the community which plays and purchases their games to start with. That's their entire job as a game studio. Make games that people (in large numbers) want to play

[thewelshwizard *T*R*Y*]

Originally posted by Myrden:

Originally posted by Khalifa:

If that's not the case for you, where is that line in your case where you will *definitely* pick it up?

I'm not sure there is a line tbh. I have no qualms with changing my mind on the internet - I really couldn't care less about what random strangers think of me. I've almost bought it a few times now so I dare say that eventually I will. There just really isn't anything about it that pulls me in.

Khalifa asks an interesting question. Up until Rome 2 I bought everything at full price including DLC's. Since Rome 2 I've only bought when heavily discounted. Unfortunately since Rome 2 I've found myself to be disappointed with pretty much all of my purchases, TOB, Warhammer 1 and 2, 3K. But that's more to do with my preferences with regard time period and game play. My opinion on both Troy and Pharaoh is that they were both overpriced and they still are.
Is there a line by which I would definitely buy Pharaoh in particular and Troy. Possibly. But that kind of discount is years away and if I'm being honest it doesn't bother me one jot. Moving forward. The time period between the end of Med 2 and the start of Empire is vast. It's colourful and incredibly interesting. I'm currently playing the American War of Independence with a hope that it might look at the French/Indian Wars and the Seven Years War. If the Creative Assembly can manage to be creative within that time period I'll be back. Until then that's my line

[Andra]

Originally posted by Killersnipe:

You fail to realize much of the hate was not directed at Pharaoh per se. It was more of a 'straw that broke the camels back' scenario. The Saga titles were not popular since the first one with ToB (this was basically CA trying to milk the fans and over saturate the market with Total War games instead of focusing on larger mainline titles with more replayability and longer lifespans).

The Saga games, as CA announced, were meant to be smaller games where they could experiment more with the formula of TW. I dont think they were trying to milk their fans when making ToB and troy, or Napoleon. I think that came in when the WH series sold more DLC's than anything else. That series started with a map smaller than pharaoh, 3 factions and 8 lords. Keep that in mind, but i completely agree that Pharaoh got unfairly judged because of all the other missteps CA slighted the fans with, intentionally or not.

Originally posted by Killersnipe:

Also the greediness CA showed with both the price of Pharaoh at launch along with the newest WH3 dlc was another red line.

The publisher sets the price. Not the studio.

Originally posted by Killersnipe:

Finally it was the setting itself that just didn't appeal to a lot of Total War fans. I personally think Shogun 2 TW is one of the best vanilla total war games but my best friend who is also a long time total war player never played it because he's personally not interested in Japanese history. Nothing I can therefore say to him will convince him to try Shogun 2. He wants to play and roleplay in European medieval and ancient warfare specifically. That's his personal preference.

What would be your thoughts if he spent all his time ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ on Shogun 2 and demanding CA changes it to fit his preference?

Originally posted by Killersnipe:

We saw from the very first announcement trailer for Pharaoh (before any gameplay was even revealed) that there was a lack of interest in the period and focus, from a large portion of the Total War community. So a lot of the criticism and unpopularity has little to do with the gameplay mechanics of the game. CA failed to properly "read the room" when choosing the focus of this next game as well as how to market and price it.

Sure, most people were wailing for medieval europe, but take that up with the main studio.
The fans of troy and bronze age settings and egypt in particular were begging for this game. Me included, and i'm not the only one. CA Sofia delivered that. If Sofia made the medieval game people are pining for, it wouldnt be the CA main studio title they expect - and it hasn't been, nomatter how much people like to pretend thats what they were promised. This part vexes me the most about peoples argument, it's navelgazing selfishness and main character syndrome to demand everything be meant for them.

Originally posted by Killersnipe:

Originally posted by Khalifa:

My point is the same for Legend; how does he declare it dead on arrival on it's second day and he hasnt touched it or played it, and extrapolates what he does from a few hours of troy early access?

Simple, he doesn't have to play it to make such a statement. Playing it may be required to make a review but he did not make a review. He simply looked at player numbers, and amount of people who purchased it and can make the claim that it did not have widespread popularity among majority of Total War fans and therefore is essentially dead on arrival. Low concurrent player numbers means dead multiplayer lobbies as well as means that less money was made from the sale of the base game, meaning less money available for producing dlc content, which also will sell less copies due to lower concurrent player numbers etc. This all leads to a dying game from the standpoint of a game studio which is interested in making money primarily.

I think you vastly underestimate how much money game studios make and how well backed TW is by Sega. And we've been through this, his video and others spawned most of peoples arguments out of thin air. Like we've gone through, it boils down to preference.
Watch out for that main character syndrome - I have different preferences than you, and if this game isnt your preference - then its not made for you.

Originally posted by Killersnipe:

He simply made a video stating features that were removed from Attila when it came to ToB. What I took away from his video is that he didn't like the campaign being simplified in ToB because he personally enjoyed a more complex campaign side of things. I don't necessarily agree with his position on everything. I didn't personally mind some simplified mechanics in ToB and I did like the new mustering mechanic that was implemented in that game (which I would like to see in more TW games personally).

This is what Saga games were made to do: experiment with the formula and find cool features to impliment in smaller games between the bigger TW titles.

Originally posted by Killersnipe:

Originally posted by Khalifa:

Vexing me the most tho is that it is such overwhelming hate that is based on preferrence that it is actively changing the game that me and others enjoy and bought this for. They're including mortality now,
DLC's are being pushed back, who knows what other changes in their plans are being done because of this community having an absolute meltdown.

Again, much of the hate is focused towards CA in general and at the direction they have been going, ignoring the majority of Total War communities feedback and overpricing that went too far. It was this criticism from the community that got you a refund on this game and made CA price it fairly. You have more money in your wallet AND still have the game because of the rest of the community that was unwilling to stand for CA treating us like garbage. And what's wrong with mortality? I'm sure there will be an option to keep them immortal if you want. This is the normal state of making improvements based on player feedback. Many historical fans were unhappy with immortal leaders and felt it was becoming too similar to Warhammer fantasy Total War games. If CA simply make it an option then it shouldn't effect you in the slightest as you can still play with immortal leaders (which, historically leaders, and humans in general, are not immortal).

Ofcourse its good that the game is more accessible now, and that feedback is being taken seriously and features implemented - never said anything to the contrary. My point is, if CA Sofia releases Shogun 3 and the roadmap looks exciting to you, why should they change that plan because of hate towards CA and Sega? I must not be explaining this well, it seems so obvious to me.

Originally posted by Killersnipe:

Originally posted by Khalifa:

Because the arguments about the engine,style,period,scope etc always comes back to preference.

And what's your point? Eating sirloin steak vs bugs is also a preference. Both give humans the protein needed for survival. Yet I assume a lot of people would be unhappy to be forced to eat bugs. What matters is what the majority of the TW community wants and is willing to pay CA to play. If a game studio makes a game that almost no one wants to play then they will eventually go bankrupt.

Amazing take, worthy of a slow clap.
If you eat steak and i eat fish, we can both enjoy our respective preferences.
I dont need to go ♥♥♥♥ on your steak, and you dont need to be here vomiting over my fish.
That's my point, and if thats going over your head then again: Main character syndrome, ego, navelgazing, etc. Widen your horizons my friend, and leave the small fishfryer that is CA Sofia alone to serve those of us who likes it.
Take your lack of steak up with the many times larger CA main.
Also, nobody is forcing anyone to consume Pharaoh for survival.
It's a game.

[Killersnipe]

Originally posted by Khalifa:

The Saga games, as CA announced, were meant to be smaller games where they could experiment more with the formula of TW. I dont think they were trying to milk their fans when making ToB and troy, or Napoleon. I think that came in when the WH series sold more DLC's than anything else. That series started with a map smaller than pharaoh, 3 factions and 8 lords. Keep that in mind, but i completely agree that Pharaoh got unfairly judged because of all the other missteps CA slighted the fans with, intentionally or not.

Personally I'd prefer more mainline games with dlc over a bunch of smaller stand alone games. Problem with the stand alone games is they end up with different code and don't get all the improvements from other games. For instance, I think it would have been much better to make a Bronze Age total war game and then have made Troy Mythic Edition as a large dlc for that base Bronze Age game. Then all the apparent improvements to combat you elude to in Pharaoh would also exist in the Troy game. Instead, because they are two separate games, none of these improvements made in Pharaoh will ever make their way to Troy which will always be in an inferior state gameplay wise. But then, I'm sure CA thought of this and decided that they preferred to be able to charge $40-$60 for a standalone Troy game and Mythos dlc rather than charge $25-30 to have it be an expansion for Pharaoh, which would give it much longer lifespan for fans due to benefiting from patches and improvements to Pharaoh or a Bronze Age equivalent base game. The Saga Titles are not consumer friendly and lead to lots of additional wasted coding time and simply more dead end branches of the TW engine.

Originally posted by Khalifa:

This part vexes me the most about peoples argument, it's navelgazing selfishness and main character syndrome to demand everything be meant for them.

Ironic that you seem to fall victim to this most of all. Everything I ever hear from you is "well I wanted this game" "I, I, I". Meanwhile, I'm just trying to explain how basic For Profit companies work. I literally stated that it is not about your preference or mine but about how many copies are sold and how many players, on the whole, are interested in the game. You might love the game, but you alone are not paying the paychecks of the development team with your single purchase of the game. This is why people have said from the beginning that basic things like the total sales and concurrent player numbers, matter. You seem unable to understand this because you seem to think the game was made for you personally.

Originally posted by Khalifa:

Ofcourse its good that the game is more accessible now, and that feedback is being taken seriously and features implemented - never said anything to the contrary. My point is, if CA Sofia releases Shogun 3 and the roadmap looks exciting to you, why should they change that plan because of hate towards CA and Sega? I must not be explaining this well, it seems so obvious to me.

Again with you displaying your own main character syndrome. It doesn't matter if the road map looked exciting to you. They didn't sell enough copies to justify following through with that road map. And once again, the game was not made specifically for you but was made with the hope to have a large audience and make money. It under performed in sales and the company has therefore stated themselves that they need to re-consider their plans moving forward. How selfish of you to personally demand that they continue with this road map despite it potentially not being profitable, simply because YOU want it. That's not how life works I'm afraid

Originally posted by Khalifa:

Amazing take, worthy of a slow clap.
If you eat steak and i eat fish, we can both enjoy our respective preferences.
I dont need to go ♥♥♥♥ on your steak, and you dont need to be here vomiting over my fish.
That's my point, and if thats going over your head then again: Main character syndrome, ego, navelgazing, etc. Widen your horizons my friend, and leave the small fishfryer that is CA Sofia alone to serve those of us who likes it.

Rather, I think it's my entire point that has gone over your head... Good luck. Hopefully at some point you can figure out the basics of how businesses work

[Andra]

Originally posted by Killersnipe:

For instance, I think it would have been much better to make a Bronze Age total war game and then have made Troy Mythic Edition as a large dlc for that base Bronze Age game. Then all the apparent improvements to combat you elude to in Pharaoh would also exist in the Troy game. Instead, because they are two separate games, none of these improvements made in Pharaoh will ever make their way to Troy which will always be in an inferior state gameplay wise. But then, I'm sure CA thought of this and decided that they preferred to be able to charge $40-$60 for a standalone Troy game and Mythos dlc rather than charge $25-30 to have it be an expansion for Pharaoh, which would give it much longer lifespan for fans due to benefiting from patches and improvements to Pharaoh or a Bronze Age equivalent base game.

Pharaoh was originally intended to be an expansion for troy.
Troy was poorly recieved however, because people wanted a historical game even though WH with fantasy units and single entity behemoths on the battlefield were their most popular title of all time. I believe that's when Sofia made the decision to instead make Pharaoh historical from the start, and as a seperate game rather than a troy expansion.

Originally posted by Killersnipe:

Originally posted by Khalifa:

This part vexes me the most about peoples argument, it's navelgazing selfishness and main character syndrome to demand everything be meant for them.

Ironic that you seem to fall victim to this most of all. Everything I ever hear from you is "well I wanted this game" "I, I, I". Meanwhile, I'm just trying to explain how basic For Profit companies work. I literally stated that it is not about your preference or mine but about how many copies are sold and how many players, on the whole, are interested in the game. You might love the game, but you alone are not paying the paychecks of the development team with your single purchase of the game. This is why people have said from the beginning that basic things like the total sales and concurrent player numbers, matter. You seem unable to understand this because you seem to think the game was made for you personally.

The reason i speak only for myself and my own preference is because it's a stupid idea to assume you can speak for "a majority". Especially so when its a majority you think you agree with. I'm being very clear, this game was made for people who asked for it and have this interest - myself among them.
It's convenient to switch narratives where you are now, and paint your presence here complaining about TW:P as a wellhearted concern for CA's income long term. You're a saint, but you'll get nowhere in that sense by telling people on Pharaoh forums that you hate it. Go to CA's forum where they actually read, and be less of a nuisance to others who you have no problem with.

Originally posted by Killersnipe:

Originally posted by Khalifa:

Ofcourse its good that the game is more accessible now, and that feedback is being taken seriously and features implemented - never said anything to the contrary. My point is, if CA Sofia releases Shogun 3 and the roadmap looks exciting to you, why should they change that plan because of hate towards CA and Sega? I must not be explaining this well, it seems so obvious to me.

Again with you displaying your own main character syndrome. It doesn't matter if the road map looked exciting to you. They didn't sell enough copies to justify following through with that road map.

Source? We've been over this. You have none.

Originally posted by Killersnipe:

Originally posted by Khalifa:

Amazing take, worthy of a slow clap.
If you eat steak and i eat fish, we can both enjoy our respective preferences.
I dont need to go ♥♥♥♥ on your steak, and you dont need to be here vomiting over my fish.
That's my point, and if thats going over your head then again: Main character syndrome, ego, navelgazing, etc. Widen your horizons my friend, and leave the small fishfryer that is CA Sofia alone to serve those of us who likes it.

Rather, I think it's my entire point that has gone over your head... Good luck. Hopefully at some point you can figure out the basics of how businesses work

You blame CA for the price of the game that CA Sofia made, and Sega priced and published.
Basics of businesses are simple,we're (i assume) both adults with work experience. i'm happy to share what little understanding i have to the games industry which you might have missed, but you'll have a more pleasant time talking to chatGPT. If this is you finally making good on yesterday's tease that you've had enough then that's where i suggest you go.
Your point is that the community is unhappy, if i boil it down to its simplest as i understand it. Well darn thats a shame but luckily, this isnt fried crickets that you are being forced to eat for survival. It's a niche game, totally optional entertainment.
I wish you a good day

[IonizedMercury]

Sorry, wherer's your data that Troy was "poorly received"? The usual grognards whined about it, but they think nothing after S2 can ever be a good TW game, so they don't count.

[Andra]

Originally posted by IonizedMercury:

Sorry, wherer's your data that Troy was "poorly received"? The usual grognards whined about it, but they think nothing after S2 can ever be a good TW game, so they don't count.

Yeah it's the usual grognards i'm referring to there

[Killersnipe]

Originally posted by Khalifa:

Source? We've been over this. You have none.

Already been provided...

Originally posted by Killersnipe:

Originally posted by Khalifa:

...i'll show you instead, with source - maybe you'll pick it up as a good habit.
From the FAQ: [www.totalwar.com]

WHY IS THE DLC BEING CANCELLED?
Instead of following through with original plan to deliver the paid DLCs roadmap, we are focusing on providing a more complete core experience for Total War: PHARAOH through free content updates and improvements focused on new cultures and expanding the campaign map. We strive to make PHARAOH as best a Total War experience as we can and will continue to work towards fulfilling its vision. For this reason, we will cut back on DLC development right now and focus on updating the core game.

From the leadership: [www.totalwar.com]
We have now begun the process of reassessing what comes next for PHARAOH, and while we don’t have all the answers today, we want to make it clear to you that we’re not closing the door on other, more ambitious updates to the game in the future. We’ve still got big plans, but we want to be honest with you in saying that we need to spend more time with them before putting them out on show.

Whilst we have removed the Dynasty Edition of the game from our lineup and have internally changed up our plans for what we go on to do next, we’ll still be releasing incremental updates to the game that help to bring fixes and changes to the core experience along the way. One plan that we’ve always had since the early stages of development on PHARAOH is to expand the size of our campaign map as a free update, and to introduce even more factions and cultures to the game. We’ll have more to say, and to show, what that looks like in the new year after our next update for PHARAOH releases.

I did read the apology in full but I love when you prove yourself wrong by providing the very quotes that help my argument (this is the second time in this thread). Where did they promise 3 or 4 dlc's in either of those statements? They do not. In the FAQ they specifically state: "We will cut back on DLC development right now and focus on updating the core game." And in the Apology Letter they say: "We have now begun the process of reassessing what comes next for PHARAOH, and while we don’t have all the answers today, we want to make it clear to you that we’re not closing the door on other, more ambitious updates to the game in the future."

Where do either of those statements confirm that we will be getting 3-4 more dlcs for the game? They said nothing of the sort! Lol, tis your own wishful thinking because that is not what they promised at all. They specifically said they are halting current development on dlc's and re-assessing things moving forward. That is not promising at all for the originally planned dlc content and far from a confirmation of it eventually coming

"They specifically said they are halting current development on dlc's and re-assessing things moving forward."

Originally posted by Khalifa:

It's a niche game, totally optional entertainment.

You are correct. It is a niche game. And unfortunately it has even under performed CA's other niche saga titles. Total War Saga Thrones of Brittania has an all time peak players number 4 times that of TW Pharaoh and that game received no dlc and was considered a general failure by CA. With Pharaoh CA has had to issue massive refunds and an official apology to fans in the wake of its release. I don't know in what universe that is considered a massive success in comparison to other TW titles. That being said, I have no issue with you enjoying it. No one else's opinions should dissuade you from playing and enjoying what you like. That doesn't make the game any less of a flop though

Here is all time peak players on steam by TW game (The only one lower than Pharaoh is Sofia's other game Troy, which released a year earlier as an EGS exclusive so these numbers only reflect those who re-bought it on Steam or purchased it a year after release to play on Steam compared to Pharaoh as a day 1 Steam release):

# SteamDB - Name - All-Time Peak
1. Total War: THREE KINGDOMS - 192,298
2. Total War: WARHAMMER III - 166,754
3. Total War: ROME II - Emperor Edition - 118,240
4. Total War: WARHAMMER - 113,019
5. Total War: WARHAMMER II - 84,920
6. Total War: EMPIRE - Definitive Edition - 27,559
7. Total War: ATTILA - 26,346
8. A Total War Saga: Thrones of Britannia - 22,797
9. Total War: ROME REMASTERED -18,526
10. Total War: NAPOLEON - Definitive Edition - 9,935
11. Total War: MEDIEVAL II - Definitive Edition - 8,453
12. Total War: PHARAOH - 5,424
13. A Total War Saga: TROY - 4,704

[Andra]

Originally posted by Killersnipe:

Originally posted by Khalifa:

Source? We've been over this. You have none.

Already been provided...

-snip-

Asking for a source that says the sales of Pharaoh sold so little that they can't afford to commit to the DLC roadmap. I dont know how you get "theyre broke lol" from them doing a price cut including partial refunds, refunds of all the DLC preorder packs, and still delivering their first DLC for free - while stating they will continue to support the game for the same timespan through 2024 and still doing a map expansion as a free update, cultures included and hopefully also the DLC's they had planned, after their new focus of core game features is handled.
From what i can tell, they seem to be doing just fine and bending over backwards to please the community at a cost to only themselves. So where is your source that says this is because of low sales?

Originally posted by Killersnipe:

All time peak players on steam by TW game (Only one lower than Pharaoh is Sofia's other game Troy, which released a year earlier as a EGS exclusive so these numbers only reflect those who re-bought it on Steam or purchased it a year after release to play on Steam compared to Pharaoh as a day 1 Steam release):

# SteamDB Name All-Time Peak
1. Total War: THREE KINGDOMS 192,298
2. Total War: WARHAMMER III 166,754
3. Total War: ROME II - Emperor Edition 118,240
4. Total War: WARHAMMER 113,019
5. Total War: WARHAMMER II 84,920
6. Total War: EMPIRE - Definitive Edition 27,559
7. Total War: ATTILA 26,346
8. A Total War Saga: Thrones of Britannia 22,797
9. Total War: ROME REMASTERED 18,526
10. Total War: NAPOLEON - Definitive Edition 9,935
11. Total War: MEDIEVAL II - Definitive Edition 8,453
12. Total War: PHARAOH 5,424
13. A Total War Saga: TROY 4,704

Well thats interesting. The game used to infer that CA will abandon Pharaoh had the highest all time peak of all - because 3K was abandoned.
It's almost as if this metric doesn't matter as much as people want it to, and things are more complicated than that.

Be concerned for the future main studio title instead then, since that's the studio in england that ditched 3K. It's 3 studios actually with about 800 people if i remember correctly. While Sofia is about 80-100 people in one studio in Bulgaria.

[Killersnipe]

Originally posted by Khalifa:

So where is your source that says this is because of low sales?

Would they be lowering the price and adding free content if they had sold enough copies at the original price and content level? Lol, companies do not issue refunds and apology statements when everything is going great and they have successful game launches. Are you really so thick or is this all just an act?

Originally posted by Khalifa:

Well thats interesting. The game used to infer that CA will abandon Pharaoh had the highest all time peak of all - because 3K was abandoned.

It was a successful launch. And the game was supported for 2 years with 7 dlc's and 3 flc's. It was abandoned after 2 years because the dlc's were not selling to their expectations. Not the base game. With Pharaoh we are talking about poor base game sales. Let's see if it gets two years of post-launch support based on low base game sales (which by default will result in low dlc sales since a smaller pool of people own the base game)