Company of Heroes III - Your expectations

I don´t think it will ever come to a CoH III

+1


Dow3 will be a disaster and will kill Relic and CoH series.

and will kill Relic

As much as I love the CoH franchise, I think this would be the thing they deserved for fucking with their customers for almost 10 years.

If my baker made bread for his customers and everyone wanted full wheat but he always made white sandwich bread, he would be bankrupt in less than 3 months.

The problem with Relic is that they are the only bakers out there and people have to deal with their shit because of that. No one likes Relic. We just have to stick with it because there is no alternative. It's like the current US election.

As much as I love the CoH franchise, I think this would be the thing they deserved for fucking with their customers for almost 10 years.

If my baker made bread for his customers and everyone wanted full wheat but he always made white sandwich bread, he would be bankrupt in less than 3 months.

The problem with Relic is that they are the only bakers out there and people have to deal with their shit because of that. No one likes Relic. We just have to stick with it because there is no alternative. It's like the current US election.

So you wish that a lot of workers lose their jobs and live on the street. Wow that is really sad from you. No one forcr you to play the game. There are a lot of other games around. You dont like them, well why you like coh2 and playing it, if you wish people to lose their job.

So you wish that a lot of workers lose their jobs and live on the street. Wow that is really sad from you. No one forcr you to play the game. There are a lot of other games around. You dont like them, well why you like coh2 and playing it, if you wish people to lose their job.

That is an irrational logic. Of course it is sad for the people losing their jobs, but that is how life is: If you do a bad job, you will lose your customers. If a carpenter makes bad furniture but wants to quinch out extra money for the screws and nails, nobody will buy his stuff, only if there is nobody else to buy furniture from, if a chef warms up frozen pizzas at his restaurant and wants extra money for the plates, nobody will visit his restaurant, only if no restaurant is there to eat.

The same thing is with Relic. They simply made a bad game that was rushed out for profit and sold extra stuff that made real money payers better than the ones that did not.

We keep playing Company of Heroes because there is no comparable game, only Starcraft-like stuff or Hearts of Iron-like stuff. (With that I mean ultra fast RTS or very/too complex WW2 games that have only a very small playerbase)

But assuming I want to see the Relic employees on the street is not correct. I just say that if you constantly deliver bad quality products (be it the game itself, the public relations, the pay2win aspect or else), you must not wonder why your customers won't trust you anymore and stop buying your products.

You wouldn't feel bad for the chef that heats up his pizzas and makes you pay for the plates, so why is Relic different?

I wonder that still everyone buy their stuff. If noone trust them anymore. I wonder that this thread is still here, if people dont want the developers anymore. Why you dont play coh1 or dow1 if the games are much better. I really dont understand why you are here if you still learned not to buy anymore their games/stuff. What is after all bad quality? The way that THQ get bankrupt and relic had no money to finish the game on the way they want. Because sega like dlc's and stuff. Because of bad performance ingame with lags and stucks and crashes.. could happening. They learned from that and will do a better game.

I'm going to keep playing this game because it's the only one of it's kind and i've already bought the damn thing. If someone else makes a CoH clone i'll buy it in a heartbeat. I'm not buying DoWIII unless the steam user reviews are "overwhelmingly positive", and when I read them it turns out the gameplay is good and it's not just a bunch of 40k lovers (tho i am one..).

vcoh style commanders, and no cancerplacements!

Even with ALL the problems COH2 has, COH3 will be the first game in my life that I will instantly pre-order since I have thousands of hours in it and I can count the games I played more than 100 hours on one hand.

Sadly I think there wont be a COH3

there will be a coh3,i have faith. there for, there will be a coh3.

I wonder that this thread is still here, if people dont want the developers anymore. Why you dont play coh1 or dow1 if the games are much better.

Last COH1 patch was great for balance but there are 2 important bugs they never fixed. Even though the balance is good, the meta has gotten stale after 5 years on one patch. The steam version has messed up leaderboards. Other than a few streamers the community is dead, very few minor tournaments, no high quality youtube commentaries, no SNF, etc. The 2v2 AT playerbase (which was actually AT unlike this COH2 bullshit) really died down after the half broken New Steam Version release.

As much as I love the CoH franchise, I think this would be the thing they deserved for fucking with their customers for almost 10 years.

If my baker made bread for his customers and everyone wanted full wheat but he always made white sandwich bread, he would be bankrupt in less than 3 months.

The problem with Relic is that they are the only bakers out there and people have to deal with their shit because of that. No one likes Relic. We just have to stick with it because there is no alternative. It's like the current US election.

So you wish that a lot of workers lose their jobs and live on the street. Wow that is really sad from you. No one forcr you to play the game. There are a lot of other games around. You dont like them, well why you like coh2 and playing it, if you wish people to lose their job.

"The real bosses [under capitalism] are the consumers. They, by their buying and by their abstention from buying, decide who should own the capital and run the plants. They determine what should be produced and in what quantity and quality. Their attitudes result either in profit or in loss for the enterpriser. They make poor men rich and rich men poor. They are no easy bosses. They are full of whims and fancies, changeable and unpredictable. They do not care a whit for past merit. As soon as something is offered to them that they like better or is cheaper, they desert their old purveyors." - Ludwig von Mises, Bureaucracy p. 227

The market always tends towards equilibrium. FaHu, your concern is unfounded... alas, we don't live in an unhampered market, so the supply and demand for human capital are not often let reach closer to equilibrium (thanks to so many laws as minimum wage, or other cost-intensive regulations and red-tape laws that prevent competition (and, this world being imperfect, without omniscient producers, and preferences ever-changing, it'll never or for only a very short time reach actual equilibrium)), so your argument might have some merit. However, it is ill of you to transfer intent to Highfiveeee. You do not know his interior disposition; you are being presumptuous. Shame, sir.

Anyways, saying there are other games around is more akin to saying he could eat cheese or drink milk instead of eat bread. There's only one baker, largely thanks to intellectual property law. Which is a hamper on the market's tendency towards equilibrium.
Now, if such laws were removed, society as a whole would be that much richer. It is a case of what is seen (a very immediate effect on a special interest group) and what is not seen (the longer term effects on everyone as a whole), as Bastiat says in Economic Sophisms and Hazlitt says in Economics in One Lesson ( https://mises.org/library/bastiat-collection and https://mises.org/library/economics-one-lesson, horray free PDFs!). This is not so far-fetched a suggestion. There are plenty, tons, of industries completely devoid of IP, such as the food industry, the furniture industry, the fashion industry, the comic industry, the magician industry. Alas, do we hear much complaining about those? Not a whit. Is IKEA or Brian Reagan out of business because someone copies their designs or jokes? No. Moreover, those high profile ones who do try to copy the jokes or reveal the magicians secrets are universally ousted and campaigned against, which is why it doesn't happen much. In fashion, people pay hand over fist understanding they could get an exact replica for cheaper but with a lesser degree of prestige. Why would it be any different with software? It wouldn't, don't be a silly. There are many routes to secure profit without IP laws, and those that say otherwise are simply uncreative (or not applying their creativity) or selfish. I will give you two small examples. Say, hardware developers would be out of business if they had no software to sell on. They have a vested interest, therefore, in funding game developers that people might buy their physical products. Another, say that a group of developers decides to "kickstart" and fully fund a project that way, and sign NDAs / contracts internally binding them all to keep things on lock until the funding goals are met.

Besides the utilitarian argument, thoroughly in favor of deposing IP law, there's also the natural law argument: if property is from the natural law, then why haven't the vast majority of civilizations throughout history acknowledged intellectual property along side it? Why is it a very recent invention? Moreover, what constitutes ownership, and how can one 'own' an 'idea'? If ideas are ephemeral universals, they must be owned by all, as one could only discover and distribute ownership: there would be no way to scarcity in the economic sense, and thus no way to lock it down as a given person's. If ideas are only present in each mind, be it as universals or as particulars or as illusions, they must be re-created in each person's mind from external stimuli. If it is their creation, and if its removal depends upon aggressing (lobotomizing) them, then it is theirs wholly simply by knowing it.

Without IP law I'd predict a much healthier games industry, and a much healthier modding community. Hardware people and alternate funding methods provide strong, flexible bases with ever expanding middleware and assets that take little more to improve or produce, and those passionate fans would tweak the games and host private services as they reached paragon status or fell by the wayside. I stand with Kinsella alongside an eminently rational position: https://mises.org/library/against-intellectual-property-0 (with a free audiobook too!). Oh, what a joy it would be if IP law was wiped away before the next CoH.

Why don't we encourage all the modders in the community to make COH 3 and then we buy it for $60 hype train price

Why don't we encourage all the modders in the community to make COH 3 and then we buy it for $60 hype train price

Because intellectual property.
Everyone should read my post, the one just above Slurpee's.

CoH3 will be Africa Campaign imo

Only if Noun DLC.

I charge a lot for image rights. I doubt Relic can afford it, or would think it was worth the cost. They should have locked that down while I still worked there.

Oh, what a joy it would be if IP law was wiped away before the next CoH.

There is no IP law at play with Company of Heroes save for the title. It's not as if you are talking about Star Wars where only people with the rights to make a game can. If people want to make a WWII RTS they can, and have. If there was a large untapped market for this then others would fill it as well.

Relic make a good game and it's sold a lot of copies. 4 million+ when I was there and more since then. 500 people on a forum don't override the millions of copies sold. If you don't like it, fair enough. Nothing is so perfect that it couldn't be better. But the idea that there's some magical IP law preventing the game being made by someone else better is kind of off target. If Blizzard or anyone else wanted to make a WWII game they could. But like CoH2 it wouldn't be perfect. People complain about Blizzard games all the time.

If fans want to make their own game they can. Heck I'll donate $10 to any reasonably professional Kickstarter if you manage to start that.

There is no IP law at play with Company of Heroes save for the title. It's not as if you are talking about Star Wars where only people with the rights to make a game can. If people want to make a WWII RTS they can, and have. If there was a large untapped market for this then others would fill it as well.

Relic make a good game and it's sold a lot of copies. 4 million+ when I was there and more since then. 500 people on a forum don't override the millions of copies sold. If you don't like it, fair enough. Nothing is so perfect that it couldn't be better. But the idea that there's some magical IP law preventing the game being made by someone else better is kind of off target. If Blizzard or anyone else wanted to make a WWII game they could. But like CoH2 it wouldn't be perfect. People complain about Blizzard games all the time.

If fans want to make their own game they can. Heck I'll donate $10 to any reasonably professional Kickstarter if you manage to start that.

To the contrary, software code is protected under IP law (or, more accurately, an absurd concept is forced and people's natural property rights are infringed upon). Any impediment to the operation of the market necessarily limits the ability of producers to supply the demand. IP law acts as a price ceiling, and oh if only those untapped markets were allowed to be harnessed! Again, I predict there would be a growth in middleware and refining pre-existing assets, all of which lower production costs which are the barrier to entry for so many potential firms to offer alternatives. More suppliers, more competition, better production processes all groom product towards quality, ceteris paribus.

To the contrary, software code is protected under IP law (or, more accurately, an absurd concept is forced and people's natural property rights are infringed upon). Any impediment to the operation of the market necessarily limits the ability of producers to supply the demand. IP law acts as a price ceiling, and oh if only those untapped markets were allowed to be harnessed! Again, I predict there would be a growth in middleware and refining pre-existing assets, all of which lower production costs which are the barrier to entry for so many potential firms to offer alternatives. More suppliers, more competition, better production processes all groom product towards quality, ceteris paribus.

Oh so your example isn't "baker bakes bread then rival baker bakes better bread" your example is "baker bakes bread then thieves steal it from his store and resell it after putting butter on it". If we lived in a world where it was okay to steal other people's work and pass it off as your own then yes video games would be different.

Not better. Different.

Oh so your example isn't "baker bakes bread then rival baker bakes better bread" your example is "baker bakes bread then thieves steal it from his store and resell it after putting butter on it". If we lived in a world where it was okay to steal other people's work and pass it off as your own then yes video games would be different.

Not better. Different.

You'd have figured this out if you actually read my initial post. Do you want me to copy it here, because you seem to have missed a few key arguments from it? Let me copy the relevant part for you here, though I encourage you to read the whole thing.

"Besides the utilitarian argument, thoroughly in favor of deposing IP law, there's also the natural law argument: if property is from the natural law, then why haven't the vast majority of civilizations throughout history acknowledged intellectual property along side it? Why is it a very recent invention? Moreover, what constitutes ownership, and how can one 'own' an 'idea'? If ideas are ephemeral universals, they must be owned by all, as one could only discover and distribute ownership: there would be no way to scarcity in the economic sense, and thus no way to lock it down as a given person's. If ideas are only present in each mind, be it as universals or as particulars or as illusions, they must be re-created in each person's mind from external stimuli. If it is their creation, and if its removal depends upon aggressing (lobotomizing) them, then it is theirs wholly simply by knowing it."

You have not responded to these objections, and have only asserted your belief.

Edit: last, your analogy is mightily flawed: in that 'stealing,' imagine if the bread was not taken, but someone made an exact replica and materialized it from their brain. Would that so be stealing? No. All it requires is a recipe and realization.