Your comment got me thinking about one more issue: What if they keep adding new, interesting content on the new map later on and keep using the the argument of ‘‘the engine doesn’t support more dungeons on the old map’’?
That’s freaking awful, man. Reading a nice update only to realize that is a new area for the expansion.
Obviously this is a supposition, but i would be completely disappointed if that’s the case.
Don’t see where in my quote that was stated. Adding more land mass is a real issue, as described by Robert. But adding more dungeons to the very few limited spots left could still be a possibility (I have no idea what their plans are, to be clear).
Dungeons can be placed technically anywhere within the physics boundaries. Entrances just warp the player to wherever that dungeon is hidden on the map. Adding actual landmass, ya, that requires a new map.
I’d say it’s simple to determine if it’ll be free… was it promised as part of the initial game price? Like, 'Mulitple maps!" or anything like that? If not, then this is extra and there will be a fee involved.
I apologize…I couldn’t let this go. I absolutely detest being called a liar, told I’m parroting, and using semantics…it’s makes me furious. A side effect to my fury is that it puts fire under my feet to substantiate my stance or opinion.
That said, I found the video in question, after many hours of digging, that should explain to the nay-sayers why it appears that Funcom has gone back on their word and why people feel that a new map should be free. To save time, I’ll highlight the timestamps on the video. They may not be entirely accurate because they showed one time the first time I watched, and a different time the second time I watched.
About 9:40, Natasha says:
“You do not have to pay for additional game content like features and mechanics. What we do have is purely cosmetic dlc that you can buy if you want to.”
Purely cosmetic dlc.
About 24:53, Jens says:
“The major updates are all going to be free. So as we said during early access when we decided to, unfortunately, cut some features, like, if we decided to add more features and game mechanics, those would be free and they will be free.”
As I understand it, a map is a feature necessary to game play and is not cosmetic and Jens emphasized the word “will”. He said all major updates are going to be free, he did not say “some of” nor did he indicate they would be free for a certain amount of time.
About 30:40, Jens says:
“Paid dlc. Ummm…(he cracks a joke) What we announced is that we’re going to be doing paid dlc and it is going to be 100% cosmetic. You are not buying power. You are not buying an advantage in front of other players. We’re not going to turn this into a pay-to-win game. Not at all. You are only buying cosmetics. You’re only buying a visual update or, like, new crafting recipes for stuff that looks different, but is of an already existing tier.”
That’s pretty plain language, folks. And they never said this applies to only some of the content or that this was only for a specified time.
By definition, maps are not cosmetic, they’re features. Cosmetics are things that are inessential to game play. A map is very essential to game play.
Later this statement was highlighted by Multigun:
If that doesn’t look like Funcom going back on their word, I don’t know what does. Now I’m not saying nor have I ever said that any of this is carved in stone, a blood promise, or that Funcom is not allowed to change their mind. All I’m pointing out is why people feel the way they do and, as I’ve said all along, that Funcom should explain this and clear it up for the community. Their language seems pretty plain and clear to me. I’d hope at this point people will realize that I was not lying, parroting, or using semantics to push a point. It’s all right here.
To a degree, I agree with that, but with a map for Conan Exiles, you have truck loads of usable resources…trees, rocks, iron nodes, animals to eat, water to drink…etc. Those things are attached and a necessary part of maps for this game. Otherwise, you’d be getting a barren wasteland.
I understand where you’re coming from though.
Well, as long as I payed full price for an incomplete glitchy buggy game, maybe your argument is not totally valid.
The “main map” , or as it is, the main game is still not a fully fixed functional game (worthy of a full price of 70 euros.) so I’m still waiting to have a working as intended game (will it ever be?) before claiming something.
You generously skipped the part in Multigun’s post where he also pointed out this comment came much later than the initial one. May I remind you when the first DLC first dropped for this game, they didn’t have much of a solid road map. If I recall correctly, it was to add a couple more dungeons and then done. Should we be equally furious they went back on their word about mounts not coming? Plans change as time progresses, and they need to adapt to that. You can’t take something that was said two years ago and hold it as an unwavering blood oath. An all new map is a huge undertaking for them to do, and releasing it for free would be a net loss, even if there was an accompanying cosmetic pack with it.
…And to show that I wasn’t lying about what I heard them say in the video.
If you want to pay for a new map when it’s released, go for it. My own decision will be based more on the state of the game, less on what was said in this video. As I said in my post:
I’ve had the game since early access and have had periods where I couldn’t play it because one thing or another was broken by patches. Most of my decision to purchase a new map will be based on my having bought the game at full price, having supported Funcom by purchasing the Barbarian Edition and what state the game is in when/if a map is released. This game has been a hot mess loaded with bugs from day one and, after almost two years post official release, still has features that don’t work. If it’s still in this condition when/if a map is released, I won’t be buying the map. Why would I?
As far as expectations are concerned, I paid good money for the game and expect it to work as intended.
So I didn’t put a date on my quote that’s already on this thread for all to see…really? I just needed to illustrate part of the quote. The date was already there.
Their road map always looked pretty solid to me and they’ve always had a lot of plans for the game. I don’t think you’re recalling correctly and I would suggest that you review all of the dev streams from early access to present.
You’re first question makes no sense. As to the rest, allow me to remind you of two things I said in my comment:
Allow me to remind you of something Funcom said:
“DLC will help us pay for the official servers and continued development of the game.”
Are they not currently selling dlc? They gave the entire game away to a lot of people for free. It’s not going to break them to gift us with a map considering the current buggy state of the game that we’ve been enduring for the past two years. But that’s another discussion.
Yes, I remember now when we signed the contract in blood under a Stygian moon. It print was tiny, the ritual was obscene. I yelled that no human court could enforce such a contract but the demons danced in the shadows chanting a charm of infernal binding.
This whole argument is tiresome and has gotten silly to the point of X promised me free stuff for the main game for life and that I only had to pay for the accessories if I wanted to. Selling a DLC “expansion” is a common industry business practice. If it comes down to pay for the expansion or don’t pay and don’t get an expansion then I vote that I be given the opportunity to pay for it.
New maps ain’t easy. They require time and manpower. If you want to continue getting cool stuff from Funcom–and have them continue to maintain the thing–you have to help them make payroll. I have no issues whatsoever shelling out $$ for a new map. Whether I actually buy it depends on the price point, but the Magic 8 Ball says “Signs Point To Yes”.