PDA

View Full Version : Purchasing In-Game Items or DLC?



Arkansan
12-13-2015, 05:16 AM
As of right now, War of Rights is set to release and be completely yours after that. But seeing that the company doesn't have the money or resources that back some of these bigger titles, will it be enough? I'd like to run by the idea of adding more content into the game later that you pay for. ie-Equipment/Uniforms/Extras. Here is a list of some of the Pros and Cons I could think of using this system.




Pro
Con




-The company has another form of income to fix bugs,
add updates, and supply more content.
-If there is something special or neat that you want,
you have to fork out a couple bucks.





-You can 'pimp' your characters Uniform/Beard/Weapon.
-You're poor and your character looks like a hobo with a rusty old musket.
Not to mention the guy shooting at you has a scoped/rifled musket.



-It would be more realistic, in the sense that only the
people who could afford the nice gear had it
-You play the game for fun and not so much for the realism.
Everyone should be equally hoboish.



-Your company can be decked out in the same nice
uniforms, looking snazzy as you soak up minie balls
-Everyone in your company is playing with different
uniforms they purchased and y'all look like a colorful fruitcake.




Personally, I am for this. Other games do very well using this system. Take 'War Thunder' for example. You don't have to pay a dime for the game. Though you can pay real money to level up faster, buy prototype vehicles of the WW2 period, and get extra decals to paint on your vehicle. MMO's use this system a LOT. 'World of Warcraft' is making a shit ton of money off of some of the silliest stuff. Pets, gear, mounts, ect. Due to this, they are constantly pumping out new DLC.

I don't want to see this turn into a grab for money. Greed can ruin the immersion. I don't want advertisements in every loading menu I see or popups when I enter new menus. A simple tab for extras would suffice. As far as everyone in a company being mismatched, that really boils down to the discipline of the unit or the rules of the community it plays with. In skirmish, I'm not sure it should matter.

The default uniforms, gear, and basic accessories should still be there and be able to be customized by the average player. But for those who want to take it to the next level, buy that spiffy parade uniform, or get the sharp gentleman's haircut, give them the option to help support everyone's gameplay by giving more for more. I think the game is on the right track, but I think this would help tremendously in the long run.



What do y'all think?

Jamez
12-13-2015, 05:23 AM
I would be completely against this. The way those games are designed is to pump out money for them. This is not what the developers of this game are going for.

Willie Fisterbottom
12-13-2015, 05:36 AM
Heres the way i see it. They definitely shouldnt add paid dlc like maps guns or units bc then the community becomes divided and its harder to find a match. I would also be against adding whole new guns or attachments for guns that cost money. Now what i would understand charging for is things like uniforms or skins for your guns stuff like that, just nothing paid that takes away content or alters gameplay.

Jonny Powers
12-13-2015, 05:39 AM
Well, my stance on these things is that I don't mind cosmetic items (unit uniforms, accouterments, gun engravings, etc), but pay to win features I'm pretty against. On the other hand, there's a loooot of cool guns that I'd like to see from the period. I think the nature of the game won't allow for the introduction of new weapons to throw the balance of the game (unless, say, they're like the scoped rifle, which has a natural advantage). And if it can provide more cash to further expand the game, well, I don't see a real big issue with it. And as far as expanding the scope of the game (other campaigns/theaters, etc), DLC looks to be like the most viable way to do it.

Arkansan
12-13-2015, 06:16 AM
They definitely shouldnt add paid dlc like maps guns or units bc then the community becomes divided and its harder to find a match. I would also be against adding whole new guns or attachments for guns that cost money.
If a form of DLC was released, it would be so everyone could still play together. Only people who buy it could use what it offers. Can't say I've ever heard of a game that did it any other way.


I would be completely against this. The way those games are designed is to pump out money for them. This is not what the developers of this game are going for.
Nothing would force people to buy the extras. They are just that, extra. The purpose is to help support the game that is still trying to make a name for itself. Gotta pay the bills.

Willie Fisterbottom
12-13-2015, 06:27 AM
Well, my stance on these things is that I don't mind cosmetic items (unit uniforms, accouterments, gun engravings, etc), but pay to win features I'm pretty against. On the other hand, there's a loooot of cool guns that I'd like to see from the period. I think the nature of the game won't allow for the introduction of new weapons to throw the balance of the game (unless, say, they're like the scoped rifle, which has a natural advantage). And if it can provide more cash to further expand the game, well, I don't see a real big issue with it. And as far as expanding the scope of the game (other campaigns/theaters, etc), DLC looks to be like the most viable way to do it.

No, no dlc with any paid guns, to balance it out just do what red orchestra does, only allow like two people per team to choose a sniper class or something like that


If a form of DLC was released, it would be so everyone could still play together. Only people who buy it could use what it offers. Can't say I've ever heard of a game that did it any other way.


Nothing would force people to buy the extras. They are just that, extra. The purpose is to help support the game that is still trying to make a name for itself. Gotta pay the bills.

Well lets say they made a Gettysburg map later on and were going to release it as paid dlc, only the people who buy that dlc could actually play on it so the community would be split.

Arkansan
12-13-2015, 06:37 AM
I really doubt they would restrict maps to DLC's. I would be against that for sure. Here would be my example of a DLC. Say they added the battle of Gettysburg. It would include the free map and several free regiments for people to chose from during the battle. What people would pay for, is the other uniforms of regiments that you can't chose from. This would mean the community wouldn't be divided, the game would still profit while making more content, and overall the game grows.

I have to say, I have a problem with games being fair and balanced. Nothing was fair or balanced for any war. I do think skill should have a great influence on battles. When I say skill I'm more referring to Company based skill and not of a rambo.

Willie Fisterbottom
12-13-2015, 06:49 AM
I really doubt they would restrict maps to DLC's. I would be against that for sure. Here would be my example of a DLC. Say they added the battle of Gettysburg. It would include the free map and several free regiments for people to chose from during the battle. What people would pay for, is the other uniforms of regiments that you can't chose from. This would mean the community wouldn't be divided, the game would still profit while making more content, and overall the game grows.

I have to say, I have a problem with games being fair and balanced. Nothing was fair or balanced for any war. I do think skill should have a great influence on battles. When I say skill I'm more referring to Company based skill and not of a rambo.

Yea uniforms, hats, anything customization really is fine.
I just dont like the idea of having to pay to use any gun in a game. Really im against any kind of level up unlock system too id rather just have all the equipment usable from teh first battle.

Arkansan
12-13-2015, 06:56 AM
I'm definitely not for having every gun usable to everyone. Especially that scoped one.. Like Jonny mentioned, there are a lot of neat guns from the time. Some of these were specialty items and rare. I believe they would be perfect to implement into the system. I also don't care for levels in this though.

William F. Randolph
12-13-2015, 07:13 AM
Hell, I'd pay five bucks on steam for a new hat, blanket, and manly knowledge of the art of beard growing. But seriously, this kind of thing would encourage more uniqueness to your character for just a few bucks. It isn't pay to win if its just cosmetic :p

Willie Fisterbottom
12-13-2015, 07:16 AM
I'm definitely not for having every gun usable to everyone. Especially that scoped one.. Like Jonny mentioned, there are a lot of neat guns from the time. Some of these were specialty items and rare. I believe they would be perfect to implement into the system. I also don't care for levels in this though.

well actually when ya think about it there was a bunch of guns exclusive to certain kickstarter levels so the scoped rifle will still be pretty rare

William F. Randolph
12-13-2015, 07:23 AM
Like what `10 people will have that, besides, most historically accurate weapons have been accounted for. Not like the remainder, would shoot better than most of the other weapons that are already going to be available.

Arkansan
12-13-2015, 07:35 AM
There were scopes for many rifles. Not just the one listed in the kickstarter. I do think they should be the MOST expensive items in the system though.

Here is a link showing many examples of scoped rifles in the 1800's
http://winchestersutler.com/BCA_Scope.html

Johnnyboy
12-13-2015, 10:09 AM
To be honest, they've made quite a lot of money (well in Australian Dollars it is, $178,873.28 infact). However if they want to add like hats, footwear or something I'm for it. But not with guns or anything that be pay to win

Mississippi
12-13-2015, 10:19 AM
To be honest, they've made quite a lot of money (well in Australian Dollars it is, $178,873.28 infact). However if they want to add like hats, footwear or something I'm for it. But not with guns or anything that be pay to win

The guns, hats, jackets, pants ect should already be in the game without paying more!

thomas aagaard
12-13-2015, 11:58 AM
Base it on how Paradox do things... where it is basically expansions.

And not how most free to play games do it... where it is pay to win (or pay to grind less)

So better guns - NO
But a new map you need to buy to play - yes.

Maximus Decimus Meridius
12-13-2015, 01:45 PM
everything what could divide the community is shit. I don't want to see stuff like that in this game. a game live from their community. so no map dlc

second a dlc should not influence the gameplay or the fairness so pls no guns ( some over powered guns, normal guns which are so good like a free gun is ok)

third so only uniforms can be a nice dlc but it's shit when your company wear different uniforms. a solution would be that the company buy the uniform and the uniform is attached to the company so if you leave the company you lose the uniform ( could be possible due to the company tool. )

so the company need money. via the company tool the members could spend money for the company financial resources.

but there would be a new problem see. the bigger companies would have a big advantage because it is easier for them to collect money as for the smaller one. so the cost of the dlc could varies by the company size. that would be really fair and would be the best and fairest way for everyone

Arkansan
12-13-2015, 10:11 PM
I feel like I've already addressed all of what Maximus stated. Couldn't disagree more.

As far as them having a lot of money.. No they don't. Take that money, divide it among the devs, and the amount of time they've put into the game. Then try to live off that. They are using it to hire more devs to work on the game as well. Meaning they have to work regular jobs, plus work on the game. Rather than having the money to work on the game full time and hire more devs.

Hinkel
12-13-2015, 10:19 PM
We are very well aware of the pro's and con's of such DLCs. We are all gamers our self and we know its a controverse topic :)
But of course, keep your suggestions and feelings coming!

We have some plans for the future, which are just placeholders now. At first, we have to work on the game and finish it.
But I can tell you that we don't want to split the community in the future. And of course, nobody should get any kind of payed advantage. :cool:

Maximus Decimus Meridius
12-13-2015, 10:23 PM
I feel like I've already addressed all of what Maximus stated. Couldn't disagree more.

As far as them having a lot of money.. No they don't. Take that money, divide it among the devs, and the amount of time they've put into the game. Then try to live off that. They are using it to hire more devs to work on the game as well. Meaning they have to work regular jobs, plus work on the game. Rather than having the money to work on the game full time and hire more devs.



Yes. If the devs show that we get great stuff for our money so more people will spend their money for the dlc's. ( like paradox with EU4)

I want some dlc which add some little stuff and not a dlc which make the game playable. pls dont be like EA.

I hate dlc's but i understand Arkensans opinion and from this sight dlc's would be ok but only if they respect my upper post ( dont find the right word. sry for my bad english guys :/ )


We are very well aware of the pro's and con's of such DLCs. We are all gamers our self and we know its a controverse topic :)
But of course, keep your suggestions and feelings coming!

We have some plans for the future, which are just placeholders now. At first, we have to work on the game and finish it.
But I can tell you that we don't want to split the community in the future. And of course, nobody should get any kind of payed advantage. :cool:

good to hear.

What could be a dlc? and what can you say about my idea with the company tool? would it be possible? Sry i dont want to advertise myself but i love the idea :D

Almanza P. Baker
12-13-2015, 10:34 PM
Im all for paying extra for new content and items of a cosmetic nature but am against any items that make a P2W angle to the game. DLC and expansions will be great and I have complete confidence that Campfire Games
will not short change us on the content so I would have no problem paying for that.

Rithal
12-13-2015, 10:55 PM
I see no place where micro-transactions are necessary considering the developers raised over $100,000 in 28 days... and the game is still months from release. :p

The developers have mentioned the possibility of expanding the available battles in the far future, and I suspect these will come as dlc, however right now I doubt we will see any. :)

Killobytes
12-13-2015, 11:15 PM
Well personally, i don't like the idea of anything needing to be purchased beyond the game itself

I've already bought the game for well over what it's final cost will be
I don't want to have to purchase anything beyond that to get what the developers make in the future

Maximus Decimus Meridius
12-13-2015, 11:15 PM
I see no place where micro-transactions are necessary considering the developers raised over $100,000 in 28 days... and the game is still months from release. :p

Thats what i think but if they want to create dlc's then, well i said it some post ago :)

Mississippi
12-13-2015, 11:21 PM
Well personally, i don't like the idea of anything needing to be purchased beyond the game itself

I've already bought the game for well over what it's final cost will be
I don't want to have to purchase anything beyond that to get what the developers make in the future

Agreed! If War of Rights releases any DLC it should be free for Everyone!

Johnnyboy
12-14-2015, 12:55 AM
Agreed! If War of Rights releases any DLC it should be free for Everyone!

I reckon if its only like $5 USD for a DLC it wouldn't be such a bad thing you know.

Bravescot
12-14-2015, 01:29 AM
I reckon if its only like $5 USD for a DLC it wouldn't be such a bad thing you know.

*Looks at the Total war franchise*

Yeah DLCs can just sod off

Arkansan
12-14-2015, 01:44 AM
Free is not how the world works. Sorry

SpectretheGreat
12-14-2015, 03:46 AM
Free is not how the world works. Sorry

You're right, and I already forked over 48 dollars. Why should I have to pay ANY MORE MONEY, this isn't the place for micro-transactions and special currencies. The game doesn't need the ability to limit people tight on funds because they want a kilt and it costs $20 or an actual skrimisher's uniform for 39.99? The game is about the content and battles, and if I remember correctly you were against realistic communication but want to use 'realism' as a reason for limiting outfits, absurd.

Willie Fisterbottom
12-14-2015, 03:50 AM
You're right, and I already forked over 48 dollars. Why should I have to pay ANY MORE MONEY, this isn't the place for micro-transactions and special currencies. The game doesn't need the ability to limit people tight on funds because they want a kilt and it costs $20 or an actual skrimisher's uniform for 39.99? The game is about the content and battles, and if I remember correctly you were against realistic communication but want to use 'realism' as a reason for limiting outfits, absurd.

But don't think it would be good to have to pay for cosmetic items like outfits, things that dont affect gameplay at all, then later on get free maps guns and cool stuff like that.

Jamez
12-14-2015, 03:53 AM
But don't think it would be good to have to pay for cosmetic items like outfits, things that dont affect gameplay at all, then later on get free maps guns and cool stuff like that.

Or maybe just leave that to the games which have a reason to do that?

SpectretheGreat
12-14-2015, 03:55 AM
But don't think it would be good to have to pay for cosmetic items like outfits, things that dont affect gameplay at all, then later on get free maps guns and cool stuff like that.

I do not think it would be great, it would be silly and unreasonable. Guns and uniforms do affect gameplay, for example; if a green uniform has to be bought then that uniform is required for skrimishers to properly outfit themselves and if regulars use it than they have an almost camo uniform. We have paid enough by backing an incomplete project, there should be no more money to hand over.

Willie Fisterbottom
12-14-2015, 04:18 AM
I do not think it would be great, it would be silly and unreasonable. Guns and uniforms do affect gameplay, for example; if a green uniform has to be bought then that uniform is required for skrimishers to properly outfit themselves and if regulars use it than they have an almost camo uniform. We have paid enough by backing an incomplete project, there should be no more money to hand over.

Firstly im not talking about guns maybe just skins for your gun a way to personalize it (just so long as it isnt unrealistic and cartoony like csgo). Second if you backed the game on kickstarter you're not buying the game, you're giving developers the means to create a game which you want to see, and as a thank you they are giving you all the rewards that come with kickstarter.

SpectretheGreat
12-14-2015, 04:54 AM
Second if you backed the game on kickstarter you're not buying the game, you're giving developers the means to create a game which you want to see, and as a thank you they are giving you all the rewards that come with kickstarter.
pur·chase
ˈpərCHəs/Submit
verb
gerund or present participle: purchasing
1.
acquire (something) by paying for it; buy.


I have acquired something via the use of monetary transaction, thus I purchased the game. As a consumer of a product yet to even be completed the thought of dishing out more money sickens me to the core, and for the option of customizing my firearm? disgraceful. The customization doesn't make sense anyways, what do you propose, making it so I can add different wood colour? The weapons of this time period aren't assault weapons with rails, you dont customize the camo or fore grips so what do I do, add different scar settings?

Arkansan
12-14-2015, 04:54 AM
Second if you backed the game on kickstarter you're not buying the game, you're giving developers the means to create a game which you want to see, and as a thank you they are giving you all the rewards that come with kickstarter.

Nicely put. My argument is that any extra money spent on the game will do nothing but help the continued development. Without a continuous income, the game will not get near the attention we would like in the future. Its simple math guys. People are too concerned about getting more for less.. Its pretty sad. I'll dub this the McDonald's Mentality :cool:

Arkansan
12-14-2015, 04:58 AM
I have acquired something via the use of monetary transaction, thus I purchased the game. As a consumer of a product yet to even be completed the thought of dishing out more money sickens me to the core, and for the option of customizing my firearm? disgraceful. The customization doesn't make sense anyways, what do you propose, making it so I can add different wood colour? The weapons of this time period aren't assault weapons with rails, you dont customize the camo or fore grips so what do I do, add different scar settings?

I would not mind some rifles made of different woods or with scaring. Kind of a neat idea. I'm sure the devs would do a great job making them look nice too.

You happen to be very rude. You can disagree with people with a little more tact..

SpectretheGreat
12-14-2015, 05:09 AM
Nicely put. My argument is that any extra money spent on the game will do nothing but help the continued development. Without a continuous income, the game will not get near the attention we would like in the future. Its simple math guys. People are too concerned about getting more for less.

By doing so you create a sub market which creates a class division inside of the game, by putting in more money you are given more rewards. No matter how harmless they may seem its still differentiating players who pay more vs those who don't, and you may think its only cosmetics but in a game where uniforms are a massive part of the game you give the devs ability to monopolize specific uniforms to make a bigger buck, if you make it so that each famous regiment's uniforms are 29.99 then all the companies of that regiment have to dish out 29.99 or suffer the consequence of looking shitty.

It isn't about wanting more for less, its about wanting a game that is %100 complete from top to bottom, not %69.9324 complete but with the Gettysburg DLC you can complete it by another %20 with all these exclusive uniforms.

Also, WarThunder is broken so if you want to compare lets. WarThunder allows for countries to be butchered by allowing their top tier fighters to be given to other countries for shits and giggles, why are Japanese constantly flying FW-190's? Because its a premium aircraft already maxed out and it destroys other aircraft because to fight Japanese fighters it requires you to stay low and limit turn ability, but thats just what a FW-190 needs is a low flying aircraft to pummel them. American Spitfire LF MKIX have a better turn rate than the British Spitfire LF MKIX, its broken.


Its pretty sad. I'll dub this the McDonald's Mentality :cool: Its called not having loose money to spend all the bloody time on uniforms I want to wear once, sorry I don't feel like I should pay for a game, then pay for another part of it, and then another part of itm, then pay for another part of it, and then another part of it, ETC...

Rithal
12-14-2015, 05:14 AM
My principle for DLC is this: Any content that should be included in the game in the first place should be free. Meaning weapons, uniforms, ect. But when a team comes back later and spends more time creating genuine new content, they should be rewarded for their effort. This includes things like maps, new factions, new gameplay, ect. Of course free is always preferable but I'm not going to complain if a team charges for brand new content like this. :)

Jonny Powers
12-14-2015, 05:16 AM
Well, after reading over these last 3 pages of comments, I have a few replies. First, in regards to 'pay to win' aspects, I will reiterate that I don't believe there is a whole lot of room to allow for that in the nature of the game. I mean, think about it: there isn't a whole lot of variation or room to abuse rifled musket physics. When it comes to performance of the guns, there will be little game-changing variation save those provided in the nature of the weapon. Case in point, scoped target rifle. It is my understanding that it won't shoot any better than a similarly sized rifle, though the added bonus of a scope will increase the accuracy because, well, far away things look bigger with it. Beyond that I really can't see what else can be done to make it 'pay to win'

Second, in regards to having to shell out more cash for this game, I would have thought this would have been a non-issue when it came to accepting DLC, especially considering most (if not all) of the members of this discussion have already done so through the kickstarter - and have, in a way, countered their arguments. If you've payed over Private rank, you've payed for limited edition items and unique skins and weapons. If the devs do come out with free DLC, great, all the more power to em. If not, that's how it goes. Just wait for a bundle or a sale and snag those kilts and beards for a few bucks like any other smart Steam shopper.

Third, I think it should be mentioned that, as many of us (myself included), have expressed an interest in expanding War of Rights to other campaigns beyond the MD/Antietam campaign, it is only logical to expect this to come as DLC or through a new game, which will not be cheap, especially if it's to be done justice. Again, if this must be done through sales, so be it.

Fourth, and this just comes from a quick review of some new posts and a couple closing thoughts, I would much rather any clothing DLC to be really unique/special items and not just common, base things like coat colors or buckle styles. Things like pocket watches, which would be really cool to pull out and use to check the time (as it would match with the day-night cycle) or badges/pins with significance to add on to my uniform. In regards to what to ad to guns, there is evidence of engravings done to guns of the period, not only of nice designs in the metal, but also of pictures and scenes, which would really add some flair to my gun. If I could get my name engraved into the grips or put unique proofing marks on my gun, I'd be real pleased!

Just a quick edit, I don't think whole units should be made exclusive. Certain fancy uniforms, like we have now with some Zouaves, for example, is alright, but if what people assume regarding units ingame is correct, a whole unit should not be left out of the base game. As it was said, if it was supposed to be in the game in the first place, it shouldn't be left out - or, if it is, it should be patched in.

SpectretheGreat
12-14-2015, 05:17 AM
I would not mind some rifles made of different woods or with scaring. Kind of a neat idea. I'm sure the devs would do a great job making them look nice too.
Well it would be, for free, as a feature in the game, not a DLC.


You happen to be very rude. You can disagree with people with a little more tact..
I mean no offence, however I feel very strongly about paying more money on a product. Its a problem that plagues games all the time, for example Star Wars Battlefront, you're almost forced to buy the season pass or you get %20 of the game. Im not saying that will happen here, but its something that should be avoided whenever possible. The game doesn't need to find ways to make money yet, since they haven't released the full game yet. Once it is fully complete more people will buy it since it will be fully complete and playable, if that fails to raise money than DLC should be considered, just not now.

SpectretheGreat
12-14-2015, 05:27 AM
Well, after reading over these last 3 pages of comments, I have a few replies. First, in regards to 'pay to win' aspects, I will reiterate that I don't believe there is a whole lot of room to allow for that in the nature of the game. I mean, think about it: there isn't a whole lot of variation or room to abuse rifled musket physics. When it comes to performance of the guns, there will be little game-changing variation save those provided in the nature of the weapon. Case in point, scoped target rifle. It is my understanding that it won't shoot any better than a similarly sized rifle, though the added bonus of a scope will increase the accuracy because, well, far away things look bigger with it. Beyond that I really can't see what else can be done to make it 'pay to win'

Second, in regards to having to shell out more cash for this game, I would have thought this would have been a non-issue when it came to accepting DLC, especially considering most (if not all) of the members of this discussion have already done so through the kickstarter - and have, in a way, countered their arguments. If you've payed over Private rank, you've payed for limited edition items and unique skins and weapons. If the devs do come out with free DLC, great, all the more power to em. If not, that's how it goes. Just wait for a bundle or a sale and snag those kilts and beards for a few bucks like any other smart Steam shopper.

Third, I think it should be mentioned that, as many of us (myself included), have expressed an interest in expanding War of Rights to other campaigns beyond the MD/Antietam campaign, it is only logical to expect this to come as DLC or through a new game, which will not be cheap, especially if it's to be done justice. Again, if this must be done through sales, so be it.

Fourth, and this just comes from a quick review of some new posts and a couple closing thoughts, I would much rather any clothing DLC to be really unique/special items and not just common, base things like coat colors or buckle styles. Things like pocket watches, which would be really cool to pull out and use to check the time (as it would match with the day-night cycle) or badges/pins with significance to add on to my uniform. In regards to what to ad to guns, there is evidence of engravings done to guns of the period, not only of nice designs in the metal, but also of pictures and scenes, which would really add some flair to my gun. If I could get my name engraved into the grips or put unique proofing marks on my gun, I'd be real pleased!

I agree and disagree, I like the idea of adding new campaigns, since that adds a completely new dynamic to the game. Like a WoW expansion it makes sense for it to cost more, but unique pins and sashes and ETC.... should not be purchasable by means of money. Why? Because again, it allows for you to look like HRH Prince Charles standing next to some average looking 2Lt when youre both in reality the same rank and position, it just is overall a feature that we should avoid. As kickstarter backers we have given money to the developers to finish their game and to own it ourselves, for some of us we gave all we could spare and sadly I have very shallow pockets and cannot afford to dish out even another dollar for quite some time. If anything we should allow for things like special pins and buttons be unlocked via playtime and experience so it would allow experienced players to be properly displayed like a real soldier would with medals and what not, but even then I dislike the idea.

You are right though about kickstarter backers receiving perks, which is something that alot of people are concerned about (myself included) if you go to the forum post that someone put up asking if it was only for yourself, or unlocked for your company. If someone wants to model themselves after the 79th NY infantry they have to all buy the Captains (Or whatever one it is) pack or not get the unique uniform.

Something cool about a game called Eternal Crusade, a game currently being crowdfunded was that the feature of the more a character played without dying the more the armour he/she was wearing would should damage to distinguish the veterans from the new guys was being considered. Something like that maybe?

Arkansan
12-14-2015, 05:40 AM
I'm not sure what other hobbies you have, but I can't say I've ever heard of a cheap one. If someone can earn the money in real life and make their character look awesome ingame, more power to them. Like when the kickstarter was going, people actually got upset that others were donating so much. You should be thanking them, they helped everyone! I'm not sure why we keep trying to make everything fair. If you want extra stuff, ya gotta earn it! Its not free. It cost someone, somewhere time and energy.

As far as War Thunder goes, you seem pretty knowledgeable ;) It is a free game. You don't have to pay a DIME for it. Yet ya still complain... talk about cheapskate.

Willie Fisterbottom
12-14-2015, 05:42 AM
I agree and disagree, I like the idea of adding new campaigns, since that adds a completely new dynamic to the game. Like a WoW expansion it makes sense for it to cost more, but unique pins and sashes and ETC.... should not be purchasable by means of money. Why? Because again, it allows for you to look like HRH Prince Charles standing next to some average looking 2Lt when youre both in reality the same rank and position, it just is overall a feature that we should avoid. As kickstarter backers we have given money to the developers to finish their game and to own it ourselves, for some of us we gave all we could spare and sadly I have very shallow pockets and cannot afford to dish out even another dollar for quite some time. If anything we should allow for things like special pins and buttons be unlocked via playtime and experience so it would allow experienced players to be properly displayed like a real soldier would with medals and what not, but even then I dislike the idea.

You are right though about kickstarter backers receiving perks, which is something that alot of people are concerned about (myself included) if you go to the forum post that someone put up asking if it was only for yourself, or unlocked for your company. If someone wants to model themselves after the 79th NY infantry they have to all buy the Captains (Or whatever one it is) pack or not get the unique uniform.

Something cool about a game called Eternal Crusade, a game currently being crowdfunded was that the feature of the more a character played without dying the more the armour he/she was wearing would should damage to distinguish the veterans from the new guys was being considered. Something like that maybe?

I just dont like the idea of unlocking things via gaining xp and "leveling up" that along with games that record your kd and all that people tend to play differently

Arkansan
12-14-2015, 05:45 AM
I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure it has already be established that there would not be levels or KD in the game for individuals.

Jonny Powers
12-14-2015, 05:50 AM
I agree and disagree, I like the idea of adding new campaigns, since that adds a completely new dynamic to the game. Like a WoW expansion it makes sense for it to cost more, but unique pins and sashes and ETC.... should not be purchasable by means of money. Why? Because again, it allows for you to look like HRH Prince Charles standing next to some average looking 2Lt when youre both in reality the same rank and position, it just is overall a feature that we should avoid. As kickstarter backers we have given money to the developers to finish their game and to own it ourselves, for some of us we gave all we could spare and sadly I have very shallow pockets and cannot afford to dish out even another dollar for quite some time. If anything we should allow for things like special pins and buttons be unlocked via playtime and experience so it would allow experienced players to be properly displayed like a real soldier would with medals and what not, but even then I dislike the idea.

You are right though about kickstarter backers receiving perks, which is something that alot of people are concerned about (myself included) if you go to the forum post that someone put up asking if it was only for yourself, or unlocked for your company. If someone wants to model themselves after the 79th NY infantry they have to all buy the Captains (Or whatever one it is) pack or not get the unique uniform.

Something cool about a game called Eternal Crusade, a game currently being crowdfunded was that the feature of the more a character played without dying the more the armour he/she was wearing would should damage to distinguish the veterans from the new guys was being considered. Something like that maybe?

I believe the battle-worn look is one that has been brought up before, but if not that is a very good idea!

For kickstarter units, I believe those are all unique, niche companies within regiments. You wouldn't need to model after the whole of the 79th NY, or at least, the fancy uniform variant.

Ingame unlocks are nice as well! My point was to make a case for cosmetic upgrades, many of which were historically only suited for those with more disposable income. Skill is nice and good, though with the general disdain for rankings, leaderboards, killfeeds, and leveling systems, I don't know how well that would be tracked.

Willie Fisterbottom
12-14-2015, 05:50 AM
I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure it has already be established that there would not be levels or KD in the game for individuals.

That's good, im fine with leveling up the more you play i just don't like having to level up to unlock new guns.

Volunteer
12-14-2015, 09:17 AM
Cosmetic items only for purchase. Anything that could diminish the participation of the community should be avoided e.g. the buying of a fighting/gaming advantage.

Incidentally, the KS 'senior officers' have already given the devs some serious amounts of wedge already: those guys did so for the love of the game not to buy themselves uber-soldier skills.

As they say - just my 2c worth. :)

AlmightyOdin34
12-15-2015, 11:44 PM
I think it would be cool to see some new uniform enhancements and such for DLC, but that pay to win aspect like in War Thunder and other MMO's would kill this game so much.

SpectretheGreat
12-16-2015, 03:44 AM
DLC is abused most often than not, what if it comes down to this?

1887

SpectretheGreat
12-16-2015, 04:09 AM
I'm not sure what other hobbies you have, but I can't say I've ever heard of a cheap one. If someone can earn the money in real life and make their character look awesome ingame, more power to them. Like when the kickstarter was going, people actually got upset that others were donating so much. You should be thanking them, they helped everyone! I'm not sure why we keep trying to make everything fair. If you want extra stuff, ya gotta earn it! Its not free. It cost someone, somewhere time and energy.

The mentality of more money, more power is literally the most corrupt thing in the world. No one got upset that people were donating more money, they got upset that the exclusive weapons and uniforms were something that they wanted and couldn't afford, and people thought the scoped rifle was going to be the only one of its kind, which concerns me aswell. Why may you ask? As a Sharpshooter I don't even want scoped weapons, that wasn't something that was a very common in the first place, but now we have people guaranteed these weapons which raises the question; Will regular infantry be allowed to use the weapons they unlocked? I would hate to go up against a Regular line and get sniped by a dude with a scoped rifle because he payed 29.99 for it. Why should we allow for a realistic civil war game come down to build-a-uniform 2016 and the loli-pop neon uniform guild come skipping on to the field with their $200 in DLC, if you want realism I will re-direct you to this;
http://www.warofrightsforum.com/showthread.php?924-Realistic-In-game-communication-Why-it-needs-to-be-implemented

If im not mistaken you opposed it saying it was "non-important" and that raises the question, why is this more important? If its to bring in additional funds I hate to be a broken record but the game has yet to even release a playable module yet, and with a successful kickstarter I dont think the company has any financial concerns as of yet. I agree with Expansions however, if they were to add an new campaign + new uniforms and some other goodies for a solid price of around 29.99 MAX, I would be okay, only if it releases atleast two years after initial launch. The reason this is different is by doing an expansion it adds more than cosmetics and if it bundles it with uniforms from units from that campaign then no one who buys it is missing content, they get it all.

A better idea for uniform progression is to take a Verdun approach, the more you play with the same people the more your "Squad Level" goes up meaning you're rewarded with playing with the same people, why not do it with companies? The game is arguably all about Companies and realistic combat between said companies so arguing solo players will have a hard time only adds more incentive to get involved, it adds a reason for companies to play together other than just for the sake of doing so.


As far as War Thunder goes, you seem pretty knowledgeable It is a free game. You don't have to pay a DIME for it. Yet ya still complain... talk about cheapskate.
Sorry Trump, im not a wallet warrior. Where I live, im allowed to criticize things that are corrupt regardless of the amount of money I have or have not put in, its called Freedom.

Willie Fisterbottom
12-16-2015, 04:13 AM
The mentality of more money, more power is literally the most corrupt thing in the world. No one got upset that people were donating more money, they got upset that the exclusive weapons and uniforms were something that they wanted and couldn't afford, and people thought the scoped rifle was going to be the only one of its kind, which concerns me aswell. Why may you ask? As a Sharpshooter I don't even want scoped weapons, that wasn't something that was a very common in the first place, but now we have people guaranteed these weapons which raises the question; Will regular infantry be allowed to use the weapons they unlocked? I would hate to go up against a Regular line and get sniped by a dude with a scoped rifle because he payed 29.99 for it. Why should we allow for a realistic civil war game come down to build-a-uniform 2016 and the loli-pop neon uniform guild come skipping on to the field with their $200 in DLC, if you want realism I will re-direct you to this;
http://www.warofrightsforum.com/showthread.php?924-Realistic-In-game-communication-Why-it-needs-to-be-implemented

If im not mistaken you opposed it saying it was "non-important" and that raises the question, why is this more important? If its to bring in additional funds I hate to be a broken record but the game has yet to even release a playable module yet, and with a successful kickstarter I dont think the company has any financial concerns as of yet. I agree with Expansions however, if they were to add an new campaign + new uniforms and some other goodies for a solid price of around 29.99 MAX, I would be okay, only if it releases atleast two years after initial launch. The reason this is different is by doing an expansion it adds more than cosmetics and if it bundles it with uniforms from units from that campaign then no one who buys it is missing content, they get it all.

A better idea for uniform progression is to take a Verdun approach, the more you play with the same people the more your "Squad Level" goes up meaning you're rewarded with playing with the same people, why not do it with companies? The game is arguably all about Companies and realistic combat between said companies so arguing solo players will have a hard time only adds more incentive to get involved, it adds a reason for companies to play together other than just for the sake of doing so.


Sorry Trump, im not a wallet warrior. Where I live, im allowed to criticize things that are corrupt regardless of the amount of money I have or have not put in, its called Freedom.

I would love to thee the verdun squad system in this game, devs please.

TrustyJam
12-16-2015, 04:42 AM
Just wanted to clear this up. No where do we state that the Kickstarter rewards will be available to you at all times in the game. You're not going to be seeing a Secretary of War backer running around with his Stonewall character model, wielding a scoped target rifle when he's playing as a private for instance. The ability to wield the target rifle will require you to play as a sharpshooter/sniper and the Stonewall character model will require you to play as the general. Same thing applies for all other digital rewards.

In terms of post launch paid DLC - we've yet to take an official stance on the subject. In all honesty it depends on how well the game sells. If we end up with a very dedicated, but small number of customers, the only way to continue the long term post launch support which we want to may be via releasing paid DLC. If we end up selling well that might not be needed at all. In any case, IF we release any paid DLC it will not be power based nor community splitting.

- Trusty

SpectretheGreat
12-16-2015, 05:08 AM
Just wanted to clear this up. No where do we state that the Kickstarter rewards will be available to you at all times in the game. You're not going to be seeing a Secretary of War backer running around with his Stonewall character model, wielding a scoped target rifle when he's playing as a private for instance. The ability to wield the target rifle will require you to play as a sharpshooter/sniper and the Stonewall character model will require you to play as the general. Same thing applies for all other digital rewards.

Thanks for clearing that up, that was a big concern of a lot of people and that puts some things at ease.

Arkansan
12-16-2015, 08:14 AM
The mentality of more money, more power is literally the most corrupt thing in the world.
Not sure where you got power from. But money does pay for stuff, yes.


I would hate to go up against a Regular line and get sniped by a dude with a scoped rifle because he payed 29.99 for it.
More like $581 USD. Everytime you rarely do get shot buy one of these you should thank the man for helping make the game possible.


if you want realism I will re-direct you to this; http://www.warofrightsforum.com/showthread.php?924-Realistic-In-game-communication-Why-it-needs-to-be-implemented If im not mistaken you opposed it saying it was "non-important"
If I'm not mistaken, you've already been told a dozen times way this is unrealistic with the use of outside voicechat. Not sure why you keep bringing realism up. I made a list of all the pros and cons I could think of. Realism being one. Sorry you don't like paying for products unless you have to.


by doing an expansion it adds more than cosmetics and if it bundles it with uniforms from units from that campaign then no one who buys it is missing content
This is just a different form of the same thing. If an expansion releases new maps with a new campaign it would divide the community of anyone who doesn't buy it as well. My idea would be to make everything optional. People buy what accessories they want to buy. Maps are automatically open to all.

I'm also pretty sure its been said there wouldn't be a leveling system in the game.


Sorry Trump, im not a wallet warrior. Where I live, im allowed to criticize things that are corrupt regardless of the amount of money I have or have not put in, its called Freedom.
I enjoy discussions and expected the idea to get criticism when I made the post. Though you are free to hold out your empty hand elsewhere :cool:

Maximus Decimus Meridius
12-16-2015, 08:21 AM
ohh shots fired :P

I totally agree with Arkansan.

thanks trusty. that was exactly what I wanted to hear ;)

Arkansan
12-16-2015, 08:38 AM
Just wanted to clear this up. No where do we state that the Kickstarter rewards will be available to you at all times in the game. You're not going to be seeing a Secretary of War backer running around with his Stonewall character model, wielding a scoped target rifle when he's playing as a private for instance. The ability to wield the target rifle will require you to play as a sharpshooter/sniper and the Stonewall character model will require you to play as the general. Same thing applies for all other digital rewards.

- Trusty

This is disappointing seeing how few people donated that high and how rare that would be to see...

Thanks for the info though.

Almanza P. Baker
12-16-2015, 09:40 AM
First off I would like to address the common misconception that because someone or something involves money that its corrupt. People are either corrupt or their not, makes no difference how much money they have.

Now to address the next thing that has been bothering me about this community: The complete ignorance surrounding the rewards for the Kickstarter tiers. First off everyone "Donated" what they could afford, this makes no one better or lesser than anyone else. The main concern for most of us was to see to it that War of Rights received the funding they needed to go forward with the development of the game.
I will now go through my rewards as Secretary of War level donator and we can see just how ungame breaking the rewards are.

1. Drm free digital copy and 1 free steam copy....ungame breaking.
2. Early access on Steam....ungame breaking
3. Closed Beta and closed Alpha access...ungame breaking
4. Authentic Civil War dug minie ball, signed War of Rights poster, Harpers Weekly 1862 Maryland Campaign print, enlistment papers and officer papers...ungame breaking.
5. Signed and numbered Drill Manual....ungame breaking.
6. Physical soft cover "The Making of War of Rights"...ungame breaking.
7.Ingame Columbus Guards uniform...ungame breaking as has been pointed out I cant use it unless im playing as a member of the Columbus Guards and its made of cloth so wont stop bullets.
8.Ingame Baker Guard Zouaves uniform....see above.
9.Ingame 79th New York Infantry uniform...see above.
10.Ingame 11th Mississippi uniform..I will be using this one as im a member of the 11th Mississippi company G.
11.Ingame Eagle pommel sword...ungame breaking, unless you stand still in front of me.
12.Ingame Allen and Wheelock percussion Army pistol...ungame breaking as it will be just like other pistols in game.
13.Ingame Hawken rifle...ungame breaking as others will have access to the same gun.
14.Ingame Type III Fayetteville rifle...ungame breaking, may be available to others this one may just look cooler.
15.Ingame J.F. Brown target rifle...ungame breaking, as has been pointed out I will have to be playing in a sharpshooter company to use this and will have basically the same advantage as them.
16.Physical Boxed Edition for War of Rights Limited Edition with signed and numbered certificate ...ungame breaking, but sweet!
17.Physical Kepi or Forage hat...you know...
18.Playable Commanders "Stonewall" Jackson and "Fighting Joe" Hooker... cant use unless playing as the General and pretty sure can be killed with bullet to the face.
19. Secretary of the War forum badge and added to the credits of War of Rights under Secretary of the War. Duh...


So I feel no shame listing all these rewards I will receive as they were all paid for with dollars I worked my ass off for so please stop insulting me and trying to make me out to be corrupt and power hungry as I am neither.
If the developers of War of Rights decide to monetize cosmetic items in game I see no common sense reason to oppose it. It will not unbalance the game or cause you to have less fun unless you let it.

Volunteer
12-16-2015, 10:35 AM
Apb +1 :)

Maximus Decimus Meridius
12-16-2015, 10:44 AM
Well said sir, well said!

if war of rights bothers you then don't play it ;)

Soulfly
12-16-2015, 10:45 AM
without knowing the actual effects the guns will have its a little early to discuss the balance, but watching the development for about 2 years now i am sure that the devs thought that through.

Jamez
12-16-2015, 11:19 AM
This is disappointing seeing how few people donated that high and how rare that would be to see...

Thanks for the info though.

Disappointing? I thought it would be obvious that you would be required to play a specific class to use the custom skin/weapon. It would be rather stupid to allow anything different.

Maximus Decimus Meridius
12-16-2015, 11:23 AM
I think he look at the aspect that nobody said this specifically

Arkansan
12-16-2015, 11:38 AM
Idk about stupid.. but I know better now

Jamez
12-16-2015, 01:16 PM
Idk about stupid.. but I know better now

I meant the idea of having a stonewall character model running around as line being stupid not directing personally.

William
12-16-2015, 03:29 PM
Iīm Against it I donīt like the idea of a Fruitcake uniform Regiment xD

Almanza P. Baker
12-16-2015, 05:00 PM
So not really sure this is the proper thread for this but as long as im ranting there is 1 other point that bothers me. There seems to be a fair amount of confusion on just what Kickstarter is. Its a service that allows you to make donations to a company or person that has an idea or a product they need help funding. In no way do you actually purchase a product you are making a donation. Some Kickstarter customers feel its appropriate to give you a reward for your donation. In the case of Campfire Games one of the rewards for your donation is a copy of their game War of Rights.
So no matter who said it or where you may have read it you did not purchase the game War of Rights, it was kindly given to you as Campfire Games way of saying thanks for your freely given donation.

Willie Fisterbottom
12-16-2015, 05:56 PM
So not really sure this is the proper thread for this but as long as im ranting there is 1 other point that bothers me. There seems to be a fair amount of confusion on just what Kickstarter is. Its a service that allows you to make donations to a company or person that has an idea or a product they need help funding. In no way do you actually purchase a product you are making a donation. Some Kickstarter customers feel its appropriate to give you a reward for your donation. In the case of Campfire Games one of the rewards for your donation is a copy of their game War of Rights.
So no matter who said it or where you may have read it you did not purchase the game War of Rights, it was kindly given to you as Campfire Games way of saying thanks for your freely given donation.

+1, exactly what i said :)

Jonny Powers
12-16-2015, 07:32 PM
you did not purchase the game War of Rights

Well, to clarify, nobody bought War of Rights in the usual fashion (through Steam or a brick-and-mortar store), but they did purchase it by means of their pledge. Granted, rewards will come a lot slower, they are guaranteed if the project is successful. A useful link:
https://www.kickstarter.com/blog/accountability-on-kickstarter
Apologies for getting off track here, if this is better placed in a new thread, let me know and I can make one :)

Getting back on track, I agree with what some others that have posted about the game balancing/breaking: The weapons provided as rewards are not game breaking and the one weapon that came close, the Target Rifle, will be limited to 27 players out of 2,230 (This is going off of the kickstarter's numbers, the warofrights.com crowdfunding doesn't list backer numbers). That being noted, you have a 1.21% chance of running into a fellow wielding one of these. Going through the rest of the kickstarter weapons, I have come up with a list, in descending order, of percentages of players who will be wielding one of these guns:
Allan & Wheelock pistol - 1.35%
Eagle Pommel sword - 2.96%
Hawken Rifle - 11.70%
1847 Colt Walker - 21.17%
Type 3 Fayeteville rifle - 26.01%
You will most likely see one of these guns on the field:
http://antietam.aotw.org/weapons.php?weapon_id=all

I think we all can agree that the devs are not blind to any of these discussions and are looking into them and the ideas we're tossing (and in some instances hurling) about. They are, like us, gamers, and can see just as well as we can what direction games are going today. They are keeping this in mind as they make this game. I know what I would like to see in the game; I've stated it above, as have many others, so I won't repeat myself. This has been under development for 2 years now and will most likely be in it for another 2 before a final product is released. With 3 different beta testing phases, they'll have plenty of time to throw stuff at us and see what sticks. I think a lot of this talk is very premature and, seeing as most likely none of us have actually played a build of the game, we don't know what's "game-breaking" and what isn't. This also applies to paid DLC: it's been said before, the game isn't anywhere near the point where DLC will come close to an issue. This thread here is purely speculative and people need to keep that in mind when discussing the possibilities of where WoR will go in regards to more paid content.

SpectretheGreat
12-16-2015, 11:55 PM
Not sure where you got power from. But money does pay for stuff, yes.
You said if a player has the money to spend, more power to them. I translated that as more money = more power, which is a pretty silly way to base your argument.


More like $581 USD. Everytime you rarely do get shot buy one of these you should thank the man for helping make the game possible. So I should feel some sort of inferiority because someone dished out more money than I did?


If I'm not mistaken, you've already been told a dozen times way this is unrealistic with the use of outside voicechat. Not sure why you keep bringing realism up. I made a list of all the pros and cons I could think of. Realism being one. Sorry you don't like paying for products unless you have to. I seem to be unable to find common ground but let me explain what you seem to be purposefully over looking; The use of 3rd-party communication actually makes the game broken, in many ways.
1: Games should never rely on 3rd Party communcation, why? Because that means you have to not only buy and install the game but download potentially dangerous software, not saying Teamspeak is bad but you never know what people might get noobs to download. Not only that, the community shouldn't be expected to have to download more than just the game for the full experience, plain and simple.
2: Its off setting for new players, a huge problem in Mount and Blade was trying to coax people onto your TS, some people didn't want to go through the hassle and its understandable, TS can be a bit confusing for new users. Why not just jump into a public game and start playing since everyone uses the gamechat available?
3: Backseat commanding was a huge issue in Mount and Blade, some events tried to eliminate it by making dead people leave the game so they can't ghost. It could be just as much of an issue here, and it is only made easier by third party communication. This proposal doesn't get rid of it in any sense, just discourages and makes it a bit more of a hassle to do.

I like to bring up realism alot because thats what this game is about, and the fact that YOU made it in your original argument and it struck me as a little odd as you were opposed to my suggestion and deemed it "non-important" but made this suggestion saying it would be "realistic" aswell, so which is it; Realism or casual? You seem to only like realism in certain aspects instead of an all-rounded realistic game. I would honestly relent on this issue if they were going to try and make it as realistic as possible and adopt my suggestion aswell as this, because then they're being true to the idea of a realistic game, sparing no small part on a gameplay mechanic or a market mechanic.

Also, im cool with paying for products. I do not like paying more than I have to however after my initial purchase, and argue if I technically own the game all you want I don't really care I gave about full retail price in the kickstarter and that was good enough.


This is just a different form of the same thing. If an expansion releases new maps with a new campaign it would divide the community of anyone who doesn't buy it as well. My idea would be to make everything optional. People buy what accessories they want to buy. Maps are automatically open to all.

I'm also pretty sure its been said there wouldn't be a leveling system in the game.
You're right, however look at World of Warcraft, their expansion system has worked out well for a number of reasons. They release them every few years giving people ample time to buy, enjoy and anticipate the next expansion and they're reasonably priced. The Money to Content value is very balanced and a perfect example on how games should expand themselves without over/underwhelming the consumer. The Verdun squad thing was just a suggestion on how to implement in-game items on a more cooperative basis but that could be a whole different can of worms, but it seemed to be unopposed by my other critic so why not consider it?


I enjoy discussions and expected the idea to get criticism when I made the post. Though you are free to hold out your empty hand elsewhere :cool:
I still can't tell if you're trying to insult me by calling me poor, because if so; that's fucked up. If you're still calling me a cheapskate, I again say I gave what I could and can't afford putting anything more in, and I oppose the idea of having to constantly throw money at this game. That doesn't make me cheap, it makes me a concious buyer who doesn't want to pay my problems away.

Arkansan
12-17-2015, 01:32 AM
No one else seems to twist my words up this much..

I've already used WoW as an example. They know how to be successful. They have the player base to divide their community with expansions and they know people will pay it because they are invested in their product. They are the pinnacle off success, even though they receive an insane amount of criticism. The main argument I've been making is that they are to be learned from in many ways. Though WoR does not have the player base to divide its community like that game.

You keep pushing you're in-game voice chat agenda in this thread. I'd appreciate it if you kept it in the thread that it already has. Like I stated before, it is un-important at this time in development. Though you have no problem telling the devs where to devote most of everyone else's donations. I've already stated how rude you are in a previous post. Though I did feel the want to retaliate against your Trump comment ;)

SpectretheGreat
12-17-2015, 03:22 AM
At the end of the day it is all opinion, and it seems the poll has pointed out a Majority do not want DLC. The Expansion system is really the only way to effectively release content, and if you disagree thats fine. At the end of the day limiting a vast majority of content to market it is pretty shifty and although it may bring funds in it may ultimately prove to be a short term solution. Until the game is released we really won't know if DLC will be needed. I never intended to be rude but calling a fellow Kickstarter backer a cheapskate for voicing their opinion was really what set me off, I don't think that any backer is more special because they gave more money and thats because they had the money to spare, I sadly couldn't afford to spend over $50 so close to the holiday season. Regarding my "agenda" I simply used it as an example to point out that its not really a good argument to refuse one thing thats realistic and then suggest something and use realism as a selling point, and then defended my point. Although it is no secret I feel strongly on both matters I feel that now is the time to be forceful, the game is made by gamers for gamers and if I defend a point strongly enough I believe I can influence a decision.

Bravescot
12-17-2015, 03:41 AM
Right you two, keep it civil.

Stop throwing snarky remarks back and forth at one another. Keep it as a discussion and not an argument.

Arkansan
12-17-2015, 05:34 AM
I feel it has been kept civil. The whole point in forums is to discuss opinions and differences there of. There has been no cursing, spam, racism, or pornographic material. No need to stop us from conversing or go deleting post again...

I didn't call you a "edited" for voicing you opinion. I called you one because you were complaining about War Thunder, a free game. Though I called you out on being rude when you called another's ideas disgraceful and absurd and continued to mock it.

thomas aagaard
12-17-2015, 06:06 AM
The kickstarter description have a number of promises and they got some cash.

Hopefully they will have delivered a working game with the elements promised before the money runs out.
And they will be able to do some post launch patching.
That is what we supported.


But After that I got no problem with an expansion that cost money... as long as it is not something that is cut from the game and is finished at day one. (like what we se with the total war games)


But extra weapons (models that we where not promished) more maps, more uniforms, more manual of arms... it all takes time to make and as such it is something that Iam ok with paying for.

Small DCLs - no thanks
Expansions made after the game is as we where promished - yes please.

Arkansan
12-17-2015, 06:15 AM
^^ 100% agree

Gandalf
12-18-2015, 02:32 PM
But After that I got no problem with an expansion that cost money... as long as it is not something that is cut from the game and is finished at day one. (like what we se with the total war games)

But extra weapons (models that we where not promished) more maps, more uniforms, more manual of arms... it all takes time to make and as such it is something that Iam ok with paying for.

Small DCLs - no thanks
Expansions made after the game is as we where promished - yes please.
I concur. Doesn't seem right to have to pay for parts of the main game. Expansions adding other battles (and perhaps other campaigns) would be wonderful.

Devmc99
12-18-2015, 08:04 PM
I honestly just think the whole DLC thing needs to die.

Maximus Decimus Meridius
12-18-2015, 08:08 PM
Pls kill it...... With fire

but if WoR is great I am willing to support it in the future

Soulfly
12-19-2015, 01:00 PM
there has always been a DLC politic, but back then those where called "Addons" and were on CD. If a DLC brings a lot more content and improves the gameplay as such, i think its fair to pay for....but 3 maps and some guns arent really an improvement..Battlefield i look at you

William F. Randolph
12-20-2015, 11:51 PM
What about paying for uniforms as an equivalent price of that it demanded in the kickstarter?

TrustyJam
12-21-2015, 12:04 AM
What about paying for uniforms as an equivalent price of that it demanded in the kickstarter?

There's no price demanded for anything in the crowdfunding campaign. We merely offer different rewards for different amounts of backing.

- Trusty

FanaticDK
12-22-2015, 09:46 PM
Well personally, i don't like the idea of anything needing to be purchased beyond the game itself

I've already bought the game for well over what it's final cost will be
I don't want to have to purchase anything beyond that to get what the developers make in the future

So when the developers have made good on their promises and delivered the content you backed on kickstarter, you want them to continue giving you stuff for free? Do you hate the developers? Do you want them to starve, both litterally and creatively?

I fully support cosmetic microtransactions of all kinds (as long as they're reasonable) and I'd be surprised and dissapointed if it didn't happen, as this money would help them further develop the game such as new maps for everybody.

Hethwill_Khan
12-28-2015, 12:11 PM
So when the developers have made good on their promises and delivered the content you backed on kickstarter, you want them to continue giving you stuff for free?

I personally expect them to move on to the next project, brand new 1863 campaign or even a complete new game, instead of sitting there and milking the funders. We will surely pay for a new project if WoR comes out right, but by no means will I, myself, will advance cash for transaction items.

If the new project is a full DLC so be it but no piece meal items and details... no sirre.

Plus the uniforms are great "thank you!" tokens, same as the rifles, pistols and other stuff.

A. P. Hill
12-28-2015, 04:00 PM
When the Developers diverge into a new scenario for this endeavor, a next step if you will, and they need funding for the development of said divergence, I'll be donating again, and again, and again. :)

Fredrick
12-29-2015, 04:46 AM
I would have to be against... We don't want this to end up like zeros and Generals... Overpriced DLcs.

SpectretheGreat
12-29-2015, 06:07 AM
I personally expect them to move on to the next project, brand new 1863 campaign or even a complete new game, instead of sitting there and milking the funders. We will surely pay for a new project if WoR comes out right, but by no means will I, myself, will advance cash for transaction items.

If the new project is a full DLC so be it but no piece meal items and details... no sirre.

Plus the uniforms are great "thank you!" tokens, same as the rifles, pistols and other stuff.

I agree, I don't think they'll milk the community for cheap ripoff DLC. They'll probably release big expansions that are almost another new game, which is something im totally willing to fork money over for. I see buying games like going out to dinner, you pay for an an appetizer, then an entree. You don't buy a steak and pay for the meat, the marinade, the seasoning and the side all separately, on top of a base fee. You pay for it all at one price, then buy another complete meal, not bits and pieces.

PvtPalmer11pvi
12-31-2015, 09:08 AM
I'm mixed personally on this topic. On one hand Soldiers could purchase items privately from sutlers who followed the army around. I think a Henry Rifle during the war was $50 and the average private made $13 a month so not everyone could afford one (even though they all probably would have loved to have one). That was just the nature of the beast. In the other hand for a game I think it may make the odds unfair for those who don't have the funds or simply do not believe in paying for additional content

Patrick Kurtz
12-31-2015, 07:33 PM
It would make it a pay to win game, that would just be awful. There are enough out there as it is.

Jeffrey Miller
01-02-2016, 07:36 AM
Agreed! I hope we can add some role playing into this. Make it our own so to speak. If they let us make our won graphics then it would be even better ala Fallout 4 or the like.

Jeffrey Miller
01-02-2016, 07:40 AM
No pay to win for sure.

John Cooley
06-01-2017, 04:17 PM
May I suggest ...
4th Poll Option - Free Cosmetics with Paid DLC and Items
5th Poll Option - Free DLC and Items with Paid Cosmetics (MY Vote)

Pay to Play AND Pay to Customize are always acceptable
Pay to Win has killed more games than I can count

Charles Caldwell
06-01-2017, 07:22 PM
My views are by all means FLC's, but Im not against paid 'cosmetic only' DLCs.

Never 'pay to win' scenarios please.

TrustyJam
06-01-2017, 07:36 PM
My views are by all means FLC's, but Im not against paid 'cosmetic only' DLCs.

Never 'pay to win' scenarios please.


And here I was, planning a $500 Gatling dlc. :(

- Trusty

Saris
06-01-2017, 07:53 PM
And here I was, planning a $500 Gatling dlc. :(

- Trusty

add in samurai and you can take my money

TrustyJam
06-01-2017, 07:55 PM
add in samurai and you can take my money

Sure thing. :)

Back to topic; We have no current plans regarding any DLC. Let's finish the actual game first. :)

- Trusty

Dman979
06-01-2017, 08:03 PM
And here I was, planning a $500 Gatling dlc. :(

- Trusty

Is that before or after the assault weapons?
Best,
Dman979

Charles Caldwell
06-01-2017, 10:19 PM
And here I was, planning a $500 Gatling dlc. :(

- Trusty

Take my money! :)

Crabesquash
06-02-2017, 03:04 PM
Pay to win, would not be cool. But to be able to buy different Hats, Kepis, Uniforms, Pants, gear, beards.... all this kind of stuff would be nice. Maybe to be able to buy like packages.
one Package contains 2 headgear, one uniform and trousers, two kind of beards and a musket (but not a special gun)

cheeyeah
06-07-2017, 02:24 AM
I think proper dlc for real items not mean coloful strange clothes will be acceptable,,,but I agains bot like zombie or samurai not fit for the history.These items should be included in a special dlc,,such as the last samurai,,at the same time,,,the background will all be changed into a series of story of US lansquenet,instead of US civil war.ALL IN ONE SENTENCE:The attention to history is changed in accordance with historical conditions,
example:youcan aquire different type of kepi,,,,not superman's red coat.:)

OmniChocoMilk
06-09-2017, 07:37 PM
Against even cosmetic items being sold as DLC. It's silly to limit the game for people who've poured maybe their disposable income for a month and then limiting their want for creativity by barring them from looking like the other 'DLC' members of their company just because it's another Ģ5. Union soldiers especially looked very uniform but maybe a character customisation for different hats, belts, slightly different uniforms, glasses etc etc but not having to pay to have a pair of boots or something.

Oleander
06-09-2017, 08:52 PM
Incoming Abraham Lincoln's Vampire Hunting Zombie Fest. :)

Saris
06-09-2017, 09:45 PM
we already did high tier purchasing with the kickstarter, there is no need for more pay to play items.

crazychester1247
06-10-2017, 04:42 AM
I don't think any pay-to-play items would be acceptable. This is a military simulation, not a free-2-play MMO. Paid DLC of resonable size, say more maps/battles, I would be fine with though.

OmniChocoMilk
06-10-2017, 10:51 AM
One type of getting more cash after the game release I think is acceptable is to allow for continued payment to the game through patreon or something. Continued donations mean continued development for the game BUT the game's extra content should be available to anyone to has bought the game once already.

Charles Caldwell
06-10-2017, 11:27 AM
I see it like this, if a regiment want a specific 'battle flag' if a player wants a larger selection of beards, hats or shirts... then why not!

If a player wants that notorious Gatling gun, or if a team wants the latest artillery then HELL NO!

Keep DLCs Cosmetic and harmless!

michaelsmithern
06-10-2017, 03:03 PM
Against the idea entirely, I'm all on board with an expansion or dlc just as long as the Campfire games doesn't turn into paradox about it where all these mechanics that are added in dlcs that should have been in the base game or make dlc for idiotic things like beards.

Norwegian
06-10-2017, 04:06 PM
Against the idea entirely, I'm all on board with an expansion or dlc just as long as the Campfire games doesn't turn into paradox about it where all these mechanics that are added in dlcs that should have been in the base game or make dlc for idiotic things like beards.

This.

Even the idea makes me want to vomit.

Erwin
07-07-2017, 06:56 AM
I am rather fond of the idea, however a little on edge. On one hand, historically you'd find all different kinds of fire arms on the battlefield, but it was for the most part as uniformed as each side could get it. I would be more willing to support the idea if it was less of a "anyone can buy these!" and more of a "we have [whatever amount] being sold, when the sell out they're gone."
The only problem I'd have with that is that then only a selective few would be able to ever use that weapon and they'd eventually get bored of it or buy a better one, which brings me to my second point. If you could pay for special weapons, or any number of things, I'd like to see you be able to trade it with other members for whatever you agree on.

TrustyJam
07-07-2017, 09:24 AM
We have no plans regarding DLC at this point. Best approach is obviously to just keep on expanding the game for everyone and hopefully that will keep winning new players over. :)

- Trusty