No. You still have the product you bought, it was just rebalanced so it is not pay-to-win. This is standard fare in the videogam industry, and all the lawsuits launched against devs for it have always failed.
As far as the Law is aware, you have the product you bought for, and the ToA does state it is a developing product that may change, and you have to accept the ToA to even install the product.
The truth is, I don’t understand what the person who designed this civilization took. This civilization should be only for single player (as to laugh at how it destroys everything), and never as a competitive civilization, it is broken in every aspect and sense, it has 30 cards in the deck for God.
Not only does it have 30 cards, but 2 of them give free upgrades (Market and Adv Arsenal) and most of the cards are completely busted.
USA will have an unstoppable Boom, and just steamroll everyone in lategame. They Magyar Hussars are literally better than Imperial Gendarmes, and the Imp upgrade is FREE!
I don’t know why we need to have some obviously OP design and say we can nerf later.
As I said to give USA auto win big button, first dev design to give them 1000 food to activate this big button, then most of people are complaining so dev nerf them to 2000 food to activate, until whatever we feel satisfy may be 10000 food 10000 wood and 10000 gold to activate, but is this fun?
The point is that they put the work into something wrong. The US doesnt fit in AoE and it feels like a cash grap and it looks like one. Either that or Microsoft forced them to add them because microsoft thinks this will earn money.
I am about 95% sure that if they had put the work of the US into the African dlc, meaning they had a bit more done, they could have shown just screenshots or small clips of that dlc and everyone would be hyped as fack for that dlc. Look already at how many people are excited for it after only like 2-3 screenshots.
If a civ is designed as a broken civ you can barely fix it with nerfs, at that point it requires an entire redesign.
The US has simply too much, it is all Europeans basically combined, all their units are better than their counter parts and they have all kinds of buffs others dont have. Nerfing at that point cant be simply increasing some costs or decreasing some stats. At that point you will be removing entire units or cards to balance.
Also the US was rarely/almost never mentioned when we discussed what civs we wanted for an upcoming DLC. Most people took for granted the devs wouldn’t actually add a revolutionary civ after putting so much effort into making revolutions more viable.
Feels like you can defeat USA with rushing everytime it doesn’t look strong early game ,it’s gonna have a bad winrate.
Nope ,any new content is hype for me ,the US was almost in completed state like 80% so they just finished it by adding the 20% same can go for african civs which was in historical battles ,i don’t think this was made for making money ,you can get it for free anyways for limited time ,they are going in right path and put a good work.Pretty sure ppl are wanting Italians more than African dlc ofc everyone would be hyped if they see a clip or screenshot of a new civ coming,but atm im more hyped for USA ,new civ in under 6 months? whereas aoe2 got it after a year.aoe3 is definitely winning.
I still don’t like USA on AOE3 I don’t feel like they fit the games’ theme at all, but TBF right after the announcement the game gained 1500 players avg yesterday compared to last Saturday, so it’s hard for me as a fan of AOE3 to be too upset XD.
And they also have promised an African DLC for later so we will still get what we want. So I’ll call this addition positive overall.
edit - Phrasing
“free” you have to atleast take 17 days doing singleplayer because you can only do 3 states per day. Next to that not everyone wants to play singleplayer.
There is sure gonna be a thread to buff USA right after when ppl get to play it ,unironically it’s not as strong as you think in supremacy.
ppl who want to get it for free will play ,we still don’t know what all the challenges are it can be mixed b/w all game modes also.
I am afraid that the developers will bundle American civilization and African civilization into one DLC.
If you miss the mission, based on the current reaction, Controversial players may not buy DLC specifically for the United States.
All the top level players who got hands on the US civ before release and have played it for several hours have said it’s on the weaker side.
But we have posters here who only saw clips of it on YouTube says it’s too OP.
Wonder which one I would believe more?
Tbh personally I would give it several weeks b4 I would.make any judgement on how strong or weak it is
well they wont, you’ll be able to buy america in a couple of days, we have no clue when the africans will be ready.
They said the same thing before Sweden came out bro.
Honestly, I don’t listen to high-level guys anymore, I’ve seen so many things these guys say, and sometimes I’m surprised they’re in the top 100 afterwards.
That is because the Top Level people naturally just want to stay at the Top, and do not mind an OP civ they can abuse, as they did with Swedes.
It is also convenient for them to praise anything new, as to stay in the devs good graces, and get content earlier.
Sweden is the best example telling us, here were many posts said “pro players don’t consider Sweden is OP and they are just fine”, until we saw Sweden got all weakness buffed and became totally broken.
Are we seriously asking for a civ to be nerfed before any one of us even play it?