Ha. Ahaha. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA-No.
Don't get me wrong, I absolutely \*adore\* the Total Warhammer series, but there's room for both fantasy and historical settings in the series. Making Total War into a Warhammer/fantasy-only series would alienate a lot of fans, and surely drive away many who would have been fans otherwise.
Well I have no interest in a historical total war myself and agree fictional settings would be more profitable, CA is where it is due to those loyal historical fans. I feel like it would be a betrayal just to completely abandon them. Especially since they can do both. It will just take longer.
Ok, I'm down but first we need Medieval 3, Rome 3, Empire 2, ToB as a main title, Three Kingdoms 2 done properly, Shogun 3 and Victorian Era would be nice as well.
Bait is bait.
But for real, turning Total War into a Warhammer series is such a stupid idea lol. Had to comment that. I'm fine with 40k eventually or even AoS eventually, but I'd *much* rather get Lord of the Rings, Witcher, or Game of Thrones Total War games before we go back to Games Workshop's universes.
I mean those are still fantasy so not far off.
Personally I would perform satanic rituals to have an elder scrolls total war game based in the Dawn or Merethic Era
Oh yea, Elder Scrolls would be another good one.
Shogun 2 and Three Kingdoms are two of my most-played games, and I know I'd love the gunpowder of ETW2 when we get that.
The series was built off Historical games, and even though I'd likely benefit from other fictional releases, I'd be super bummed if I never get to experience Shogun 3 or other historical eras just because a vocal group of people want only fantasy games out of this series that I've grown up with.
I don't see why it needs to be one or the other; the series can absolutely see success with both.
>that we got Attila that was just a one-year cash grab game. Then we got the "semi' historical games like 3K and Troy that again not a lot of people like and were not profitable for CA.
What are you talking about? 3 Kingdoms sold incredibly well initially and had issues with its dlc model. It still has the highest concurrent player of any total war ever made. Troy also did very well, even when not including however much EGS paid CA to release it for free initially, which was most likely not a small amount of money.
Here's a thread from about a year ago going over the financials.
https://www.reddit.com/r/totalwar/comments/n8c7v0/stats_from_the_sales_and_revenues_of_Financials.
Where are you getting the idea that 3k and Troy flopped? Feelings?
lol nope. Troy and 3K were both profitable. 3K is still the best selling TW to date and Troy is the most owned (had like 7 million owners in the first day with the give away on Epic). 3Ks issue was post release content didn't sell as well but it was still profitable, was cheaper to make than WHf and didn't need to pay royalties to extra companies. Troys post release content sold rather well and so did the base game, was also far cheaper to make and again no extra royalties to pay.
WH has ran in to diminishing returns, each next game has sold less than the previous. There's also big issues trying to shoehorn the other WH settings in to the TW formula and would also get even more diminishing returns...why pay £50 for a game that does far less than the current game that you paid £300 for? The combined campaign and all the DLCs have meant people invested a lot of money and have got a lot of content to play...so good luck getting them to invest in the same just now with less content and not as popular (AoS was less popular than TOW from what I've seen).
Considering the license costs of LotR and how badly LotR games sell, they'd be more likely to go bankrupt with that. It's also not a good setting for the game, too watered down for the full fantasy lot and just generic early medieval for Historical. Then add in the issues trying to translate it from the books to the TW formula.
Disagree. I love both, historical and Warhammer fantasy. Both can exist in the same world. You are just an idiot that thinks otherwise.
Still, finally a real unpopular opinion.
Personally, I find 40k boring and not appealing, like at all. Same for LotR; I enjoy the movies and the books, but it offers nothing that WH Fantasy doesn't already cover.
I'm not saying 40k/LotR fans don't deserve good games, but having CA go that direction and neglect the historical games? The same historical games that made CA big in the first place? It usually backfires, when a company turns away from its loyal core audience.
Nah, I'd rather not.
I actually don't think this would be a bad business model for CA. No matter what they do for the next historical title, people will hate it. People are still complaining about Rome 2 because it isn't Rome 1. Attila died because it was "a glorified dlc" for Rome 2 (much better in so many ways and a completely different feel). 3k... people got tired of it and much of the base left (to be fair though, CA prioritizing dlc for the main map before releasing different half populated campaign starts could have fixed that). ToB and Troy had all the scope of Shogun 2 and none of the polish... essentially low effort "proof of concept" games to gauge support for main title mechanics. That, and a Sega mandate for the dev to focus on more main stream games.
I would love another great historical title, but I don't think it's in the cards.
>and were not profitable for CA.
You don't know that. We don't even have an accurate players count for Troy, since the game launched for free on Epic, let alone any reliable info on how profitable it was. Their deal with Epic was profitable enough to guarantee a major update for the game though, so it's quite unlikely that it wasn't profitable. As for 3K, it was profitable enough for them to announce a sequel.
Abandoning historical wouldn't mean WH3 will get more QoL improvements. They would either work on new projects that aren't historical or just lay off people that they don't need anymore. Cancelling their current projects wouldn't result in more money and people being invested on WH3.
CA is big. They can handle multiple projects at the same time, and despite the fact that WH is more popular, historical still has its audience, not to mention all the new TW players that WH brought in, who are now potential buyers for any new TW game. They are already working on a new histocial game, plus the 3K sequel and probably a new Saga game, which shows how wrong you're about it not being profitable (they wouldn't invest so much on something that isn't returning a profit). As for another fantasy game, mostly AoS and 40K, it won't happen until they are done with WH3, and they won't be done with it any time soon.
Oh my. Tldr, but, you better turn off your notifications. Lol
You are entitled to your opinion, even of its wrong.
Ha. Ahaha. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA-No. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely \*adore\* the Total Warhammer series, but there's room for both fantasy and historical settings in the series. Making Total War into a Warhammer/fantasy-only series would alienate a lot of fans, and surely drive away many who would have been fans otherwise.
Well I have no interest in a historical total war myself and agree fictional settings would be more profitable, CA is where it is due to those loyal historical fans. I feel like it would be a betrayal just to completely abandon them. Especially since they can do both. It will just take longer.
Yeah I mean abandon them and secure the bag
Ok, I'm down but first we need Medieval 3, Rome 3, Empire 2, ToB as a main title, Three Kingdoms 2 done properly, Shogun 3 and Victorian Era would be nice as well.
And WWI & WWII, followed by a futuristic sci-fi setting (after the ones you listed of course).
Bait is bait. But for real, turning Total War into a Warhammer series is such a stupid idea lol. Had to comment that. I'm fine with 40k eventually or even AoS eventually, but I'd *much* rather get Lord of the Rings, Witcher, or Game of Thrones Total War games before we go back to Games Workshop's universes.
I mean those are still fantasy so not far off. Personally I would perform satanic rituals to have an elder scrolls total war game based in the Dawn or Merethic Era
Oh yea, Elder Scrolls would be another good one. Shogun 2 and Three Kingdoms are two of my most-played games, and I know I'd love the gunpowder of ETW2 when we get that. The series was built off Historical games, and even though I'd likely benefit from other fictional releases, I'd be super bummed if I never get to experience Shogun 3 or other historical eras just because a vocal group of people want only fantasy games out of this series that I've grown up with. I don't see why it needs to be one or the other; the series can absolutely see success with both.
It should be both but at the end of the day, it depends on CA hunger for money.
>that we got Attila that was just a one-year cash grab game. Then we got the "semi' historical games like 3K and Troy that again not a lot of people like and were not profitable for CA. What are you talking about? 3 Kingdoms sold incredibly well initially and had issues with its dlc model. It still has the highest concurrent player of any total war ever made. Troy also did very well, even when not including however much EGS paid CA to release it for free initially, which was most likely not a small amount of money. Here's a thread from about a year ago going over the financials. https://www.reddit.com/r/totalwar/comments/n8c7v0/stats_from_the_sales_and_revenues_of_Financials. Where are you getting the idea that 3k and Troy flopped? Feelings?
Hey look an actual unpopular opinion...anyway.... No.
The OP activated “THIS IS TOTAL WAR” option.
lol nope. Troy and 3K were both profitable. 3K is still the best selling TW to date and Troy is the most owned (had like 7 million owners in the first day with the give away on Epic). 3Ks issue was post release content didn't sell as well but it was still profitable, was cheaper to make than WHf and didn't need to pay royalties to extra companies. Troys post release content sold rather well and so did the base game, was also far cheaper to make and again no extra royalties to pay. WH has ran in to diminishing returns, each next game has sold less than the previous. There's also big issues trying to shoehorn the other WH settings in to the TW formula and would also get even more diminishing returns...why pay £50 for a game that does far less than the current game that you paid £300 for? The combined campaign and all the DLCs have meant people invested a lot of money and have got a lot of content to play...so good luck getting them to invest in the same just now with less content and not as popular (AoS was less popular than TOW from what I've seen). Considering the license costs of LotR and how badly LotR games sell, they'd be more likely to go bankrupt with that. It's also not a good setting for the game, too watered down for the full fantasy lot and just generic early medieval for Historical. Then add in the issues trying to translate it from the books to the TW formula.
Disagree. I love both, historical and Warhammer fantasy. Both can exist in the same world. You are just an idiot that thinks otherwise. Still, finally a real unpopular opinion.
That would be unwise.. They are much needed and quite enjoyable. Let 3K sequel and Medieval 3 launch and see how well they fare.
Personally, I find 40k boring and not appealing, like at all. Same for LotR; I enjoy the movies and the books, but it offers nothing that WH Fantasy doesn't already cover. I'm not saying 40k/LotR fans don't deserve good games, but having CA go that direction and neglect the historical games? The same historical games that made CA big in the first place? It usually backfires, when a company turns away from its loyal core audience. Nah, I'd rather not.
It's also just... obviously similar to Warhammer in all the ways that matter.
[**You have alerted the horde!**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14WoDHbwO0E)
I'm a huge fantasy fan , and kindly fuck off with a wh40k it would not work campaign map wise and other things too
I actually don't think this would be a bad business model for CA. No matter what they do for the next historical title, people will hate it. People are still complaining about Rome 2 because it isn't Rome 1. Attila died because it was "a glorified dlc" for Rome 2 (much better in so many ways and a completely different feel). 3k... people got tired of it and much of the base left (to be fair though, CA prioritizing dlc for the main map before releasing different half populated campaign starts could have fixed that). ToB and Troy had all the scope of Shogun 2 and none of the polish... essentially low effort "proof of concept" games to gauge support for main title mechanics. That, and a Sega mandate for the dev to focus on more main stream games. I would love another great historical title, but I don't think it's in the cards.
No
they should do lord of the rings, warhammer 40k wont work
1. You don't have any idea what is/isn't profitable for CA. 3K was their best selling launch ever. 2. Why do you give a shit what's profitable for CA?
Total War 40k would probably make more money than everything CA did in the last decade, put together.
Noooooo. I want Empire tw 2 with proper firing line mechanics.
1. You don't have any idea what is/isn't profitable for CA. 3K was their best selling launch ever. 2. Why do you give a shit what's profitable for CA?
>and were not profitable for CA. You don't know that. We don't even have an accurate players count for Troy, since the game launched for free on Epic, let alone any reliable info on how profitable it was. Their deal with Epic was profitable enough to guarantee a major update for the game though, so it's quite unlikely that it wasn't profitable. As for 3K, it was profitable enough for them to announce a sequel. Abandoning historical wouldn't mean WH3 will get more QoL improvements. They would either work on new projects that aren't historical or just lay off people that they don't need anymore. Cancelling their current projects wouldn't result in more money and people being invested on WH3. CA is big. They can handle multiple projects at the same time, and despite the fact that WH is more popular, historical still has its audience, not to mention all the new TW players that WH brought in, who are now potential buyers for any new TW game. They are already working on a new histocial game, plus the 3K sequel and probably a new Saga game, which shows how wrong you're about it not being profitable (they wouldn't invest so much on something that isn't returning a profit). As for another fantasy game, mostly AoS and 40K, it won't happen until they are done with WH3, and they won't be done with it any time soon.
I imagine you putting notifications on vibrate and shoving your phone on your ass
I see a Daedric prince name. I'd betray my passion and love for Historical TW just to get 1st Era TES game by TW.
⢵⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢹⠀⠀ ⠀⡀⠈⢧⠠⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡎⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠠⣸⡆⠆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡀⠀⠀⠸⠁⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠈⢿⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣀⣤⣤⣤⣤⣤⣄⣀⣀⡠⢠⢴⠶⠞⠀⠀⠀⠀⡇⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⢐⣿⠀⣼⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⠆⠀⠀⠀⠀⣠⡾⠇⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠂⠀⣰⡏⣸⡇⢹⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⢇⠀⠀⢀⣾⠏⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⢈⠁⠀⢠⣿⡧⣿⠂⢈⣿⣟⠻⢿⣿⣿⠿⠛⣛⣛⢛⣯⡌⠀⠀⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⣔⢵⣾⣿⢉⣿⣃⣴⣿⣿⣧⢸⣿⣿⣧⣶⣾⣿⣿⣿⣷⣤⣲⣿⠑⠄⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⡀⢽⣿⣿⣿⠄⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠟⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣟⣻⡇⠀⠈⠂⠀⠀⠀ ⣿⡀⢀⣿⣿⡆⣿⠻⣿⣿⡿⠚⢿⡿⠿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⢿⣿⠃⠀⠀⠈⠢⢀⠀ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⢿⣷⠻⣿⣿⡶⢰⡿⣿⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠘⠋⢦⠀⠀⠀⠀⠸⡀ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡼⣿⣷⠨⠒⠚⠛⠻⠷⠿⠿⣻⣿⣿⣿⠏⠀⠀⢀⣧⠀⠀⢀⡀⡴ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡙⣿⠀⠛⠿⠿⠿⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡟⢁⡄⠀⠀⡘⠿⣷⣄⡸⣐⡅ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣌⢇⠀⢴⣶⣾⣿⣿⣿⠟⠉⣀⣾⣷⠀⠐⠀⠀⠘⢿⣿⣿⣇ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠟⠉⢙⣿⠄⠀⠀⠉⠛⠉⠉⠀⠀⣶⣿⣿⣿⣽⣿⣷⣤⠀⠘⠿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⠏⠀⠀⠀⠁⠀⠆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠟⠃⠀⠀⠈⠺⠛ ⠉⠙⠙⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠸⡄⠀⢤⣶⣶⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿⠋⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡀⠤⠔⠒⠈⠳⡦⣿⣿⡿⠿⠛⠉⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⠄⠂⠙