Forums > Game Forums > War of the Roses > For future reference
Alaka (106411) on 9/15/2015 6:47 PM · Permalink · Report
All those 2012 critic rankings will need to be moved to a new entry (the non premium version of this game) eventually.
From Wikipedia: On 21 March 2013 Paradox Interactive relaunched the game as a premium version called War of the Roses: Kingmaker With more new weapons and armour it also launched a new gamemode, Assault, in which Lancastrians attempt to take over positions held by Yorkists. It was accompanied by the additions of full controller support and support for Steam's “Big Picture” mode.
Kabushi (261233) on 9/16/2015 7:36 AM · edited · Permalink · Report
With non premium version you mean the free version?
I am fairly sure this was a commercial title from the start and that Kingmaker was an update to the original release called just War of the Roses. The free version must then have been released at a later date.
edit: looking the Steam page up on archive.org confirms this
edit 2: the free version is also called Kingmaker in-game
Cavalary (11445) on 9/16/2015 9:31 AM · Permalink · Report
Means the initial release of the game. No longer listed on Paradox' site now, but can find it there on the archived version. Until my correction, pending since Jul 2013, was approved now, here we had Kingmaker listed with the original's Oct 2 2012 release date. Though oddly enough now on the site they sayFeb 10 2013 as launch for Kingmaker? Archived version says Mar 21.
Kabushi (261233) on 9/16/2015 12:22 PM · Permalink · Report
Kingmaker isn't a new game, it's an update of an existing game whose name was changed. This is not an uncommon practice, many games do it (here's one for example) but we don't treat these as new games. The only thing that makes this one different is that they changed the business model from a fully commercial release to a free release where everything could be unlocked with a single DLC. This was announced here so the free version really is just a demo that has been reshuffled on the store.
What I don't like though is the current practice of having the updated title as main title. It's just very confusing as we see here and it goes against how we do for other re-releases with new names.
Cavalary (11445) on 9/16/2015 12:55 PM · Permalink · Report
So it shouldn't have been corrected then?
Didn't even have the initial name as alternate though, specified as original, nor a separate release entry for this re-release. Just the info from the initial release and the name from this one (which, not knowing anything about it - had just stumbled into a review for the original and noticed this here - I so far assumed to be an expansion).