There's an entire quarter year left of this one. They could have it almost locked down, and be finishing it up with a view to releasing it in 3 months and still hit "this year".
- 1
CK3: The Royal Court - The Vision
- Thread starter rageair
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Fact is, I'd rather the cycle was slow, and the product better, and more polished, as opposed to rushed and buggy...
- 4
They also already informed that it is taking longer than they originally planned.
I really hope that you are wrong, otherwise it will be the mistake of the century for the "paradox", I really want to play CK3, but I can't do this while waiting for the innovations, I see no reason to play, knowing which chips will be added ...
- 1
- 1
It seems a strange choice to me. I can see the court and the artifacts being in a DLC. But how will the game fare well with and without dynamic cultures in the same time?
(for those who don't have the DLC)
It seems to make this a soo mandatory dlc (like the ck2 byzantin was because of the retinues), and that is not what a DLC should be.
And if it is not mandatory, how will it stay impactfull enough?
(for those who don't have the DLC)
It seems to make this a soo mandatory dlc (like the ck2 byzantin was because of the retinues), and that is not what a DLC should be.
And if it is not mandatory, how will it stay impactfull enough?
Yeah, culture as a new feature will certainly be interesting, but I doubt it'll be important enough to make it a required feature. Time will tell though I suppose.
Will the Royal COurt DLC be available for download earlier than relase date, so people can play on release date?
- 1
That sentence seems to make little sense. Why would it have to be downloadable earlier to be playable on release date?
- 3
Sometimes on download platforms like Steam you can download the game a day or two in advance (but not play it) so that you can play it as soon as it releases without the need to download and install it.
It's mostly a convenience thing for people with slower download speeds.
- 3
- 2
- 1
That sentence makes PERFECT sense, come on, you know EXACTLY what I mean.
Ubisoft cleared Far cry 6 for download and install EARLIER.
When people come home from work. want to play RC and have to install it first, they might no be able to. DUH.
PS: WHy would it? Becaus it could. In forums, Answers with "Why would......" usually make no sense at all.
- 2
- 1
- 1
The answer is obviously going to be that it is not available for earlier download so you can immediately play it on the release date.
Why you may ask. Well for various reasons.
firstly the DLC content isn't actually separate from the game version update, by buying the dlc you just unlock the ability to play the dlc parts of the game.
As such there is no separate install for the DLC.
Secondly the version update itself doesn't make sense to preload, given that the game already is ready to play, and the 1.5 version simply is an update to the game. I have never seen a game that has preloadable version updates that then later unlock on their proper release date. This btw would make you unable to play the game in its original pre 1.5 version.
Why you may ask. Well for various reasons.
firstly the DLC content isn't actually separate from the game version update, by buying the dlc you just unlock the ability to play the dlc parts of the game.
As such there is no separate install for the DLC.
Secondly the version update itself doesn't make sense to preload, given that the game already is ready to play, and the 1.5 version simply is an update to the game. I have never seen a game that has preloadable version updates that then later unlock on their proper release date. This btw would make you unable to play the game in its original pre 1.5 version.
- 3
- 1
- 1
I hadn't known when I asked it, @Autar nicely explained it and got his "Helpful" reaction from me. No need to be a jerk about someone else's misunderstanding.
And this is just wrong. They normally do - insofar as they're questions rather than answers. "Why would you expect X?" (and variations thereof amounting to "Why would X hold?", such as above) is a valid question when your expectations do not include X and someone mentions X in a context where they seem to expect it. Aligning expectations by facts is how cognition progresses.
Frankly, reacting with "why would it be this and that" and stating sth would not make any sense, when the person stating this has never heard of the issue he comments on, is the definition of "being a jerk" in a forum in my book, hence my reaction.
If I do not have certain knowledge of the non-existence of an issue that seems strange to me, I personally refrain from commenting.
But I will move back to topic now.
- 1
- 1
