I have read this and was surprised because I thought it was the least difficult multiplayer-mode to implement. I never played PBEM, so for me it is not big thing. Still it is something I want to try someday. Now we have to wait if it is implemented in AOW3 - if not, I should join a PBEM-game in AOW:SM sometime

PBEM is my favorite style of play, so I hope it will be added soon enough. It may be somewhat complicated to add mail client capabilities that work with contemporary mail providers to the game, but I think they can cooperate with Davespice and use his excellent Wrapper program or some code from it...

I certainly hope it gets developed soon! I have no one to play with in hotseat and my private life does not allow me to play such long games like turn-based ones in a continuous period of time as they demand. Regarding multiplayer, pbem is the only solution for me...

Bummer, plus no boxed edition. At least in the U.S.

[This message has been edited by ffbj (edited 02-05-2014 @ 01:42 PM).]

In addition, there will be no offline LAN Modus, which means you need an internet connection to play together. No AoW play on a LAN party anymore...

For me this would be the death of AoW3, when it will not be changed soon.

Armin, apparently the internet connection is only needed to set the game, not to keep playing. Won't your LAN-party group be able to solve that?

Armin, apparently the internet connection is only needed to set the game, not to keep playing. Won't your LAN-party group be able to solve that?

Trying to set up an actual dual-homed network with Win 7 is a pain in the butt though, and how would you set up the local (LAN) IP addresses anyway? If you can enter them manually, I wouldn't think an internet connection would have been required in the first place unless it's to some online server/hub. If you're limited to using a separate external address for each machine you're not on a LAN, you're just a bunch of people on the internet who happen to be in the same room.

Seems like a major restriction, though not I must say an uncommon one these days of "but everyone has 24/7 internet access!"

I have very little technical knowledge in these matters, but I was just referring to one of the devs notes on the subject:

"To be clear, the game does work via LAN, but both machines need an active internet connection to be able to find each other. The process is like:

1) Machine A and Machine B connect to the matchmaking service via the Internet
2) A hosts a game on the matchmaking service
3) B joins that game
4) A and B connect directly to each other, if they’re on the same LAN they don’t need the internet anymore.
5) A and B can now play together."
(original post)

If this is true, it doesn't seem that hard to accomplish, although I'm not aware of Albaron's LAN group possibilities in getting internet access at the locations.

I have very little technical knowledge in these matters, but I was just referring to one of the devs notes on the subject:

"To be clear, the game does work via LAN, but both machines need an active internet connection to be able to find each other. The process is like:

1) Machine A and Machine B connect to the matchmaking service via the Internet
2) A hosts a game on the matchmaking service
3) B joins that game
4) A and B connect directly to each other, if they’re on the same LAN they don’t need the internet anymore.
5) A and B can now play together."
(original post)

If this is true, it doesn't seem that hard to accomplish, although I'm not aware of Albaron's LAN group possibilities in getting internet access at the locations.

Why do I need an internet connection for just one short connection and then I don't need it anymore? The only reason I can imagine for this extreme limitation is a copy protection. This is rediculous.

The problem is, that our LAN parties take place in group houses, which are mostly very far outside. They tend to be older and so no internet available there. In addition, because it is far outside, the mobile internet is also mostly not available. Even mobile phones doesn't work sometimes. Depends on the provider. We only have our switches and play in a LAN. That's it. So the suggested solution doesn't work either for us. Of course I have internet at home, but not at these locations.

I already wrote this on their website forum, but I really can't understand, why they didn't see that one of the main reasons, apart from the brilliant gameplay, of Shadow Magic living for so long, was so many options to play in multiplayer. LAN, Internet, PBEM and Hotseat. This isn't more complicated now than 10 years ago! They had it already implemented! Now it is not possible (wanted?) anymore?? I can't see why.

I understand, Armin. It's truly a shame.
I guess some of us will be stuck with AoWSM, which isn't a bad thing anyway, but still...
Without pbem, I won't play multiplayer either. And the "likely" particle in "to be added later" isn't comforting. Who knows what will happen later?
Damn!

I have very little technical knowledge in these matters

I do, and here's the thing. I have a LAN at home with four machines (no, really). They all connect to internet through a gateway via NAT/DHCP, which means to each other they have unique local addresses, but share a single external address because I don't need or feel like paying for a block of addresses. Thus to another server on the internet (like this matchmaker server) they will appear to be the same machine - same IP, same ports - so how is it going to let me "search for another machine?" The problem is made more complicated by the fact that my gateway is multi-homed, so my LAN and my internet not only are not on the same IP subnet, they're not even on the same MAC address.

That's not an unusual configuration for a quick "bring your own laptop" LAN party and that's what needs to be supported independent of remote access considerations, and I see nothing in the quoted thread to say it will be.

Yep, I'm pretty disappointed in any game these days that requires an internet connection to play multiplayer. I'd love to be able to play LAN and not need to worry about an internet connection. Then to make it even worse "PBEM likely to be added later" stings me. I know I haven't been around this community for a long time like some of you, but it's clear to me that AoW/AoWSM would not have had the creativity in modding and map making following it, if not for active PBEM players. I looked forward to starting/joining some PBEM games on release of AoW3. I probably won't even buy it until PBEM is confirmed in it now.

[This message has been edited by TravisII (edited 02-07-2014 @ 09:54 AM).]

Good post TravisII!

I totally agree with you!

@ChowGuy:
I see. So if I understand you correctly, then what the dev said is unlikely to work. I wonder if things are still too undetermined at the development level, regarding this matter. I can't understand his post outside this possibility.

Anyway, it is clear that internet is a must these days in order to play, sometimes even in singleplayer like in Diablo III. LAN parties seem to be menaced indeed..

It must something that's evolved over the years away from more freedom as to how games may be played, as something more of an extra feature, sort of a bean-counter approach. Well allowing or adding in these features will only add/subtract x amount of sales, weighing those results, and cutting out anything not considered absolutely necessary. At least pbem will come later.

@albinscott

Unlikely to work in as straightforward a manner as implied. I can posit scenarios where it ciuld be done, as for example if the "match maker" system is fact some sort of token server creating keys for every game registered on it, and the only way to get that key (needed to join to another user) is via an online app. That's doable, but the only reasons I can see for having such a system in the first place are 1) copy protection/license restriction which has been mentioned (and I'm OK with) or 2) for implementing a "Pay-per-play" system, which I'm not.

Worse, I can see such a requirement causing the same grief as Valuesoft's issuing "new" copies AoM without the licensing key to use online.(*) What can we expect if/when Triumph or their publisher decide to shut down the Matchmaker servers, which is likely once they're not bringing new revenue?


(*) Added: I only know as much as was in the HG Staff Forum a few years back (which is private, so I can't link) so if the situation has changed...

[This message has been edited by ChowGuy (edited 02-07-2014 @ 02:44 PM).]

I see it exactly as Travis...
For me, the game is more or less worthless without PBEM mode as this is (as my time, like itīs true for many other players) very limited, the only possible way for me to play the game with other human beings (and besides that I simply love this way of gaming for various reasons) and playing against AI doesnīt give me anything anymore these days (maybe Iīm simply too old meanwhile )
so I can really only hope that PBEM will at least be added as soon as possible - but actually it should be in from the very beginning!
Let me ask like directors (who usually have no clue about their emloyees` daily work ) do : Why would it be an issue to implement a technology into our new product which weīre already using in our 10year old product??
(usually the question comes with a slightly swollen neck and you better have a good answer at hand )

"[...]due to difficulties with protocol and saved game file sizes" Lennart Sas
I asked myself a similar question when I read Lennart's post, Marc: "Isn't it supposed a new product to be BETTER than an old one?"

[q="albinscott"]"[...]due to difficulties with protocol and saved game file sizes" Lennart Sas
I asked myself a similar question when I read Lennart's post, Marc: "Isn't it supposed a new product to be BETTER than an old one?"]/quote]

You're acting as if the the new products protocols for recording and playing back a more complex (3D) game are a fait accompli, and it's just a matter of putting that presumed file in some sort of wrapper (Davespice's was mentioned) and that's all there is to it. Has it occurred to you that the development and testing effort of that file itself might be a major source of delay in releasing a product that;s not even in beta yet? Do you really want to hold off 90%+ of the potential customer base for it, most of whom aren't even represented on this or the official forum?

Sorry, I may not like the situation, but I cannot fault the devs for accepting that 'the needs of the many outweigh those of the few.'

well... after all it seems to me as if PBEM had been put at lowest priority level - not least due to the fact that most likely, indeed - in times like these - the PBEM crowd is much smaller compared to the online, LAN etc.. crowd...
I personally have not the slightest clou about these protocol things (but I honestly canīt believe or understand that save-game-file-sizes are much of an issue in times like these where guys go out buying 4-TB hardrives and 99% of all users have internet flats with 36-100 or even more MBps...

Sigh - in conclusion I can say for me alone: Iīm really fine as long as itīs clear that it will be in there rather sooner than later. As a start it certainly wonīt hurt playing the campaign and maps and most likely play around with the editor (assumed there will be one)

ChowGuy, not only it has occurred to me, but Lennart Sas said it explicitly, so I've never called that into question. I'm just sad that pbem is delayed and is "likely" to be developed at a later stage, that's all; from my own point of view, it makes AoW III a lot less interesting than AoW SM. But I understand that I can be one in a million and most of the potential buyers won't mind, peacefully. That's how things work

RE: spike in negative comments towards the video-game industry...

I am not planning on buying this game either!

For me, the issue is no boxed-edition and what Travis said in post #12.

I still wish the developers well!

I just don't see myself as customer material for today's video-game industry.

While I understand the disappointment about the lack of PBEM in initial release of the game, I don't understand the whining about the lack of boxed edition - for me it doesn't matter how the game gets to my computer, as it has no impact on the way I can play it. Especially when it's going to be released on gog.com, which means no DRM.

As a consumer, those are my terms...no matter how unreasonable they are to you...I have a right to my own terms!

Being always connected could be annoying, but lack of LAN shouldn't be a problem: if you want to play with people near you there is hotseat mode.

Hotseat will not allow simultaneous turns, which LAN permits. That is a killer for games with more than 2 players, essentially.

Really, really disappointing news about lack of PBEM. I'm surprised that it is technically difficult. My guess is they are starting to rush to get a release out. Things start to get cut when the team falls behind schedule, probably severely behind schedule.

If not for PBEM I would have given up on AoWSM a long time ago.
I do not have large blocks of time available for online/LAN/hostseat
games. Also, I am hard pressed to gather enough local players
to play LAN/hotseat. Playing the AI is not nearly as interesting
or challenging as competing against other players. So PBEM email
is my preferred style.

I hope they reconsider the priority of PBEM. Without it I really
have to consider how much I would play the game. With it, it is a
no-brainer.

I wanted to respond to this thread before but couldn't due to NDA constraints. But it has been partialy lifted in a way that we can answer to some questions without going into too much details.

I want to reasure you that PBEM is very important to them. And the wait will probably not be a long one.

I would not advice you to hold on buying the game for that delay, if you enjoy the AoW series. Mostly because it has enough new elements that you'll need to learn anyway, that will keep you occupied while they work on PBEM support.

Hope that eases your concerns a bit.

Cheers!

I wanted to respond to this thread before but couldn't due to NDA constraints. But it has been partialy lifted in a way that we can answer to some questions without going into too much details.

I want to reasure you that PBEM is very important to them. And the wait will probably not be a long one.

I would not advice you to hold on buying the game for that delay, if you enjoy the AoW series. Mostly because it has enough new elements that you'll need to learn anyway, that will keep you occupied while they work on PBEM support.

Hope that eases your concerns a bit.

Cheers!

???

No, it doesn't. Because this is not the only concern about the game.

I will be waiting

Hey Roger. Nice to see you around

@Albaron: If you're referring to the LAN issue, unfortunatelly, I don't know anything other than what's already been publicly said.

I started a thread in the beta forums a while ago expressing your concerns and posted a link to this thread. Lennart read it and responded. So he's aware of that you want it.

Still, it was known since November that the game would not support it directly (other than what Tombles explained). So it seems like it was one of those decisions taken a long time ago.

https://ageofwonders.com/forums/topic/multi-player-questions/#post-13513

Great, but still more what me concerns.

One of the most important one: As fas as I can see now, the game will need a steam account. This may prevent me from buying the game, if it is also necessary for the boxed issue.

Another issue is a more personal one. I generally dislike 3D for a turn-based strategy game. For me the graphic is not nice. I watched the videos, but it doesn't create a real fantasy atmosphere and looks pretty awful.

But graphics is not that important if it follows the function or gameplay. I'm concerned it will.

The gameplay can level the graphics' disadvantage, if it would be brilliant like it is in SM. So far I'm very concerned about the gameplay as well. For example: Only 6 units in a party reduce the strategic options very much. I never really understood why they would dare to do this. I watched all the videos and now I can imagine why. The TC maps are bland. Especially if it comes to the siege of a city. These maps simply wouldn't have enough space to host 8 units instead of 6! Maybe it would enforce to much hardware power?

Although Triumph really had a big credit for me and I frankly wanted to pre-order, but luckily I didn't, I'm disappointed so far. But I'm only one fan and may still buy the game, just to support Triumph and thank them for so many years of fun with the older games. If others like the new game, great. I honestly wish Triumph a big success.

[This message has been edited by Albaron (edited 02-21-2014 @ 02:20 PM).]

Quoted from Albaron:

One of the most important one: As fas as I can see now, the game will need a steam account. This may prevent me from buying the game, if it is also necessary for the boxed issue.

AFAIK It will be also released at gog.com, which doesn't use any DRM. I don't know if the boxed version will require a Steam account, I hope not.

About 3D graphics: I prefer 2D too - recently I played Panzer Corps, which is a remake of the old classic Panzer General. It has 2D graphics with almost no animations, and I like it a lot

But 3D, if done well, can be a good option too, and I think in AoW3 it's not bad. Also, when you zoom out you get the cloth map, which is a good thing for the fantasy atmosphere IMO.

About 6 units per hex: In SM there was sometimes too many units per battle for me (up to 56), which could make me lost and confused. Now it's a bit less (up to 42), and I think it's the optimal number. But I understand that it may be disappointing for some hardcore players, who usually want more complexity.

I don't agree that TC maps are bland, especially city sieges look very interesting for me.

Generally I think AoW3 can create a similar effect as Civ5 - some fans of the series, who wanted an improved version of Civ4, were disappointed by the new game, as it's quite different than the previous one, with some things made more complex, and some streamlined. The same can happen to AoWSM fans - AoW3 won't be an improved AoWSM.

[This message has been edited by PawelS (edited 02-21-2014 @ 02:42 PM).]

Quoted from PawelS:

AFAIK It will be also released at gog.com, which doesn't use any DRM. I don't know if the boxed version will require a Steam account, I hope not.

You're right with the gog release, but there are rumours, gog may issue steam codes in such cases. In the same thread they mentioned, that the boxed versions will most likely need a steam registration.

http://ageofwonders.com/forums/topic/drm-free/

Quoted from PawelS:

About 3D graphics: I prefer 2D too - recently I played Panzer Corps, which is a remake of the old classic Panzer General. It has 2D graphics with almost no animations, and I like it a lot

But 3D, if done well, can be a good option too, and I think in AoW3 it's not bad. Also, when you zoom out you get the cloth map, which is a good thing for the fantasy atmosphere IMO.

I like the idea and realization of this cloth map too. That's a great thing, but everything else in this 3D look is highly exchangeable, nothing fancy in my opinion. Look at HOMM V or VI. The same here. Nothing special. In this case you could mix up both games. I play HOMM V for years now and I find the graphics extremely boring.

Quoted from PawelS:

About 6 units per hex: In SM there was sometimes too many units per battle for me (up to 56), which could make me lost and confused. Now it's a bit less (up to 42), and I think it's the optimal number. But I understand that it may be disappointing for some hardcore players, who usually want more complexity.

I don't agree that TC maps are bland, especially city sieges look very interesting for me.

The complexity is decreased with only 6 units or at least transferred to another 'level'. In addition there is too much 'automatic' in such fights. The TCs are completely different to the existing ones and I'm concerned I will not like the new version. I'm afraid of this fact, because it was the TC which gave me the 'final kick' in SM. So much options and it makes the big difference to other games. It gave me a roleplaying feeling, which I can't see so far in the new game. At least it appears to be more interesting than in HOMM V. The interface doesn't look very well too. But maybe this is only a matter of acclimatization. Hopefully.

Anyway, there is no accounting for taste. If you like the TC maps it is great. I do not. At least like they appear in the videos so far.

Quoted from PawelS:

Generally I think AoW3 can create a similar effect as Civ5 - some fans of the series, who wanted an improved version of Civ4, were disappointed by the new game, as it's quite different than the previous one, with some things made more complex, and some streamlined. The same can happen to AoWSM fans - AoW3 won't be an improved AoWSM.

I agree, but exactly what I was afraid for.

But as I said, I will most likely buy the game anyway, even if I won't play it much or never. Just to pay them for all the fun I had with the old games so far!

The complexity is decreased with only 6 units or at least transferred to another 'level'. In addition there is too much 'automatic' in such fights.

IMO, from having played a lot of TCs vs humans and AI, I think they retain the same depth than the previous games. Some of the TCs I've played in multiplayer lasted for quite a long time. Sieges in particular.

Yeah, there are some things that increase the complexity of combat, like the flanking mechanic. Also I like the fact that there is less randomness in combat - you always hit, only the damage is not fully predictable. And spells have an alternative effect when they fail, so you never waste mana and casting points completely.

1) Hi Roger, has been a while
2) Itīs too much text to read
3) I see it like the Harlequin - itīs OK to wait for PBEM and to play the campaign, maps, hotseat etc.. before to get really into the game mechanics before. As a matter of fact, I did it similarly with AOWSM. I got it in 2003 and my 1st PBEM was 3-4 years later I guess...
4) I completely understand Albarons one concern about Steam...BUT...- as my fanatic gaming-buddy explained to me some days ago - the world of gaming is not anymore as it used to be 10 years ago and nobody will change this anymore. Thatīs the way how things delvelop throughout the years - call it evolution...
In a couple of years, boxed games will be collectors editions only and gaming without continuously being online for whatever heavens goddamn sake will be impossible.
and donīt get me wrong - I couldnīt agree more to all your concerns and I hate this development like you do - but I think arguing against evolution is like riding against windmills... or like trying to convince my daugther that itīs time to go to bed... or to tell my wife that 50 pair of shoes is enough... etc...

People who don't like the mechanics and policies of today's modern-day video-game industry's practice of doing business could join me in boycotting the purchase of this game or any game that follows the current paths of this industry.

Believe me it's not an easy thing to do if you are like me and have embraced video-games your entire life.(I am 58).

Seriously, I have not purchased any newly-released game from any developer since Steam was founded. The video-game industry has died for me and remains so to this day.

I might add that I most definitely would have purchased quite a few recently-released games if it weren't for the whole Steam/DRM junk.

Historically, boycotting has been known to be somewhat effective if enough people get on board.

I for one do not plan on breaking my many-years-long-boycott...not even for my favorite developers. Sorry Triumph!

[This message has been edited by flyguy (edited 02-22-2014 @ 12:53 PM).]

@flyguy: Can you explain what is your protest against - is it only Steam/DRM, or also something else?

Various forms of DRM were used since the beginning of the gaming industry - I'm younger than you, but I remember the time when games were protected by requiring the player to enter some words from the manual, or by using some special kinds of floppy disk formatting, and later by checking if the CD is in the drive (as in case of AoW1/2/SM). Now it's done by using an internet connection to restrict who has the right to play the game - I don't think it's a good idea, and, like the attempts in the past, it's not an effective way to stop pirating the games, but it's not a big deal for me - just another small annoyance that won't cause me to refrain from buying games.

Speaking of gaming industry in general, I see positive tendencies lately rather than negative - things like crowdfunding and digital distribution make it easier to create niche games, that satisfy the tastes of players like me, who want something different than the mainstream titles. What I don't like is the DLC model, where the game is divided into little pieces that are sold separately - I prefer old-style expansion packs, where one such pack contains a large amount of content, and I hope it will be like this in case of AoW3.

Being forced to get a steam account to purchase or even just to play a game is one thing that I don't like. That alone is enough for me.

Being forced to get a steam account to purchase or even just to play a game is one thing that I don't like. That alone is enough for me.

Then I understand why you don't buy Steam games. But there are lots of new games available that don't require a Steam account, mostly from "indie" developers. There are games that are on Steam, but are also available for purchase as DRM-free versions, when you go to the websites of their creators.

[This message has been edited by PawelS (edited 02-22-2014 @ 08:20 PM).]

Thank you for your input, Harlequin! Hope that pbem will indeed go through.
About the other aspects of the game, namely graphics, stacking limits and so on, I really can't say anything before getting to actually play the game. I'm not a big fun of 3D graphics, though, so I understand Albaron in this aspect.

@ flyguy: I see your point about boycotting and it surely is an respectable attitiude to express opinion but do you believe it will change the gaming industry if you boycott small developers such as Triumph - who - on the other hand - take at least a small risk by developing a TBS strategy game in 2013/14 which will surely satisfy "old(er)-grown" customers but still bears a risk to become a slow seller if the mayority of the youth doesnīt accept the turn-based mechanic?
I donīt think that would be the right signal and rather mean the end of such audacious projects meaning the death of games which we love (except they are funded - like Pawel mentioned completey right - by crowdfunding - the mabye greatest invention of the gaming-world in the last years! (oh, btw - itīs also successfully applied in the (independent) music scene where lots of promising (and formerly "big and successful") bands were suddenly forced to quit due to the enormous sales decrease of their records thanks to MP3...)

Yes...where was I..? right... and In order not to risk the game to become a shopkeeper, Triumph is forced to go at least with this kind of development in order to get their customers...
Donīt get me wrong - I also donīt understand it - I was asking my buddy why the heck are you buying games on steam if they cost the same as boxed editions and he answered he wouldnīt care about holding a real (physical) product in his hands - the only thing that counts is to have the game 24h earlier available to play..
See - thatīs REAL insanity It seems time is the most valuable product in times like these

Closing this - I think boycotting would rather be the right signal if it was applied against the influential Mega-Sellers...
And then youīre again the one fish among millions swimming against the stream ...

@ the whole community

For the past several years since I started boycotting any new purchase of video games that require a steam account...

In order to cope with my emotions at not getting to put my hands on a copy of the latest new game...

I usually end up spending literally dozens of hours watching youtube videos of other people playing the new game.

This, I find, helps me cope with the situation thus easing the sting of getting left out.

So, please post some videos of gameplay to youtube if you can. I'll be looking for some of them to watch.

@ PawelS

It sounds like you are more informed than me about this stuff. I wouldn't disagree with that assumption.

All I know is that you can't walk into my local computer game store and actually buy a game that works without a steam account; at least not that I know about.

Maybe you could add purchase information for drm-free copies of new games to your threads about the latest released video games. I have a list of games several years long that I refuse to buy off steam.

@ morgul666
I would buy this game in a heartbeat if I could walk into my local computer game store and pick up a copy that actually worked!

[This message has been edited by flyguy (edited 02-23-2014 @ 01:23 PM).]

Moderator hat on

This discussion is beginning to sound a whole like certain popular web cartoonists and others who like to portray DRM in general and the RIAA in particular as "violating my freedom" while suing anybody who links to or re-posts their work without written permission. An attitude which always strikes me as akin ti Krako yelling "I GOT RIGHTS!" after Scotty tells him "It looks like we put the bag on you."

While not yet in violation of the CoC, it's wandering dangerously close to thin ice.

Moderator hat off

I don't care for the idea of "pay per play" either, but it's for economic rather then ideological or philosophical reasons, and I'm not inclined to call on anyone else to support me in them.

[This message has been edited by ChowGuy (edited 02-23-2014 @ 03:44 PM).]

Well. For me it's the other way around. If it wasn't for digital stores like Steam, I wouldn't be able to play most games.

The costs of importing games to Argentina, just in freight, doubles the cost of the game. And you have to add to that a cost for importing from our customs.

For developpers, it seems, it's also more profitable that way. At least, I read Lennart saying so.

@flyguy: The DRM-free games that I mean are not boxed editions, which seem to be a thing from the past, as in present times it's much easier to download a game than to go out and buy it, or wait for a mail order, and also it decreases the distribution costs greatly. And who needs a box anyway, it's the game that makes us happy Although some games are available as boxed editions for those who like to collect boxes, usually at a higher price.

I don't have full DRM information about all games from the list in my thread - I'm mostly interested in the games I buy, and I don't buy all games from my list. But if you check the websites I link to, you can see that some of the games listed are available from sources alternative to Steam, and some of them don't use DRM (I won't post any examples to avoid advertising). I case of doubt you can look for more information or ask the developers or publishers whether they use DRM or not.

Of course to buy a game online you need to register an account somewhere, just like any other web shop. But if it's a no-DRM game, you will be able to run it from any computer, and without an internet connection required.

This applies mainly to "indie games", created by small developers, in case of "big titles" you will usually need Steam or other kind of internet connection based DRM to run them.

[This message has been edited by PawelS (edited 02-23-2014 @ 07:20 PM).]

I absolutely understand flyguy. I agree totally. I'm sorry, call me old-fashioned or backwardly, but for me a download game is 'nothing'. Box is what counts for me. And I agree also with steam. I never bought a game where a steam account is required since now and I don't intend to do so. Even if I would buy AoW3 and it will require one, I may buy it, but I never will register at steam. Then it is just because I would like to support Triumph, nothing else. Even if I will never play it afterwards.

@morgul666: You're a bit wrong. Turn-based strategy games are in at the moment. It is not a very big risk to release such a game now.

@flyguy: There are several videos about the gameplay from AoW3. Not only from Triumph, also from others. This is my source of information and the AoW3 forum from Triumph. At the moment I don't like it much.

I understand The Harlequin as well. It's a good thing to get games in this way today, but it should be possible in both ways WITHOUT steam or something similar. And of course it is more profitable for developers to use such distribution.

I don't like DRM much and mainly I think it would not be necessary, but I would understand if Triumph decides to use DRM, which it does look like, they should think about a system which annoys the player not very much. An internet connection before playing multiplayer in a LAN is not a good idea, as I mentioned before. The system they intend to use is not very clever, because you will need exactly that. And one of my biggest concerns: After two or three years the planned server will not run, because it is not profitable anymore. Then the game reaches its end. For me this way looks a bit 'intended', if you know what I mean. Shadow Magic is played since 10 years now and maybe for another 10 or even more. I'm afraid AoW3 will be dead after 3 years latest. Hopefully I will be wrong.