HOI4 Dev Diary - Bag of Tricks #1

[adam_grif]

Really gotta say - merging units and minimap as DLC features?

Far from amazed by this.

I'm not really bothered by merging divisions for several reasons - one is that it's functionality is already "mostly" covered by deleting divisions to free up manpower and equipment - it's pretty rare you'd care about keeping one specific divisions up to strength as opposed to just having a good overall equipment and manpower situation. The other is that it's not a feature found in HoI3. You can manually shuffle brigades, but merging of the strength of two divisions is not possible in the same sense.

Minimap strikes me as a poor choice obviously as I've gone one about it plenty in this thread.

 

[Pyramid_Head]

I think "Minimap DLC" is one of the worst concepts so far, on par with "Horse Armor DLC"

 

[Axe99]

As I stated previously, I'm not arguing the merits of the DLC strategy overall. It's just a few specific choices I take umbrage with. They've already set out to make a certain portion of updates free and a certain portion as not free. A minimap may not have shipped with HoI4, but it did ship with every other of Paradox's games (except Stellaris which is essentially a different genre all-together and the galaxy-map makes that functionality redundant) and all prior Hearts of Iron games - all the way back to Hearts of Iron 1.

Up front, I'm in no way suggesting you shouldn't speak up when you think things are out of whack . Sorry if at any point I was trying to suggest that - am a big (huge!) fan of open discussion, and many points of view and all that. I may have been a tad blunter in my expression than usual, it definitely wasn't intended as such. In that context, while I'm arguing my position, it's just my position - not a fundamental truth or anything like that. I still believe in my position, but that doesn't mean you or others can't or shouldn't hold different views .

Why would I, as a consumer, be happy about buying functionality that all previous games in the series had, and even the company's other competing series have? It appears as if they stripped something out of the game and then charged me to add it back. Something some people absolutely did want (you can find threads asking for it going back years). Not adding it back in at least would have told you that they were being consistent with their design decisions. Adding it back into the patch would have told you that they acknowledge that something of value was lost, and they've come around on it (for design reasons, not technical reasons - there was never any obstacle to it's inclusion). But to charge for it looks like nothin' but ol' greed. Like they took it out so they could sell it back separately. That's the signal it sends to the consumer and that's exactly the message received on the paradox reddits (which are larger communities than here, I might add, with ~35k people following r/paradoxplaza!).

The issue I have with this is that the thinking is a tad simplistic. It's not like they 'stripped out' a minimap, but rather they didn't build one for the release of HoI4 and they've built one now - and in no small part due to HoI4 players asking for it (so it's not like they've changed their design position - Podcat makes it quite clear he doesn't feel the need for a minimap in the game, but respects that others are keen on it so has included it in). Now, if it looked like HoI4's development went smoothly, and they had lots of extra capacity to add bells and whistles and what-have-you, and we knew the dev team were working three-hour days pre-launch and spending the afternoons sunning themselves on Stockholm's beaches (sorry, not the best example, but whatever the climatically appropriate alternative is in that neck of the woods!) then, while there's still no entitlement to demand what is or isn't in the base game, claims of greed might be justified. However, and I was following the development from well before launch, it looked anything but the case - there was a lot of work, a lot of pressure, and if there was a decision to not include a mini-map at launch it was because the work was spent on something else - ie, whatever people paid for the game, they paid for a product with oodles of development hours spent on it, with a bunch of features.

So while to some it looks like "nothin' but ol' greed", I'd argue people that see it from this angle are lacking perspective and context. There's also more than a dash of irony that people demanding things for nothing get to accuse other people of being greedy and get away with it .

It's generous in the sense that somebody can in principle get years of updates at no extra cost. It's greedy in the sense that they are making a king's ransom by charging the people who do pay for these (note: I am one of these people, and I own the Field Marshall edition) more than they're worth (there have been some garbage DLC packs over the years, and frankly none of the ones so far for Hoi4 have been great value) and releasing DLC packs at a furious pace for years. And it's worked out great for them, they're a slender and highly profitable company that has been expanding for several years.

Value beyond "price paid against resources spent to produce it" is contextual - as far as I can gather, for the quantity of effort and resources, HoI4's DLC packs value was good, and comparable with other PDS DLC - so on the only potentially objective measure, I'd argue that they weren't bad thingat all. However, how much people value the actual content in terms of what it does mechanically or for immersion is almost entirely a personal issue. I thought both DLC packs were good value (I've had well under 50 cents an hour of value from both - there's very little in the entertainment industry that comes close - and I've enjoyed that time a heap as well). Others who prefer to focus on playing majors have found them to be of very limited value indeed. The beauty of DLC, though, is that those who enjoy it can buy it, and those that don't can leave it alone.

But I don't think you're totally right on the PR front. I mean at first, it's definitely the case that there was a honeymoon with gamers, say 2012-2015. But that's effectively over now. The regional pricing change just a few months ago was quite a hammer blow to the goodwill the company had, and for HoI4 specifically they've been shedding good will steadily since launch. The Season Pass was a bit of a question mark but people had little reason to doubt paradox at the time. Then the game launched in - let's be honest - a pretty bad state. The technical side of things has been one step forward one step back, late game lag is severe, the AI has gotten better but is still quite bad overall, and a lot of people were unsatisfied by a broad reduction in complexity.

I wasn't embroiled in the regional pricing change shenanigans, so I can't really comment one way or another on that (beyond that there was clearly at least some miscommunication, as I was somewhat confused as to what was going on). On the other issues you mention though:

• The game launched in a significantly better state than any HoI prior. Every other HoI I played with weekly autosaves because the question of CTDs wasn't if but when. I think I've had one non-mod-related CTD in over 700 hours of playing HoI4.
• Late game lag is definitely a thing, but I get faster speeds in 1945 with HoI4 than I get in 1943 with HoI3 (on the same machine, in as-far-as-I-can-tell-but-I'm-no-techie the same general system set-up situation). I can only comment on my personal experience, but Stellariss has far, far greater issues with late game lag than HoI4, and HoI4 is substantially better than it's predecessor.
• The AI is only 'quite bad overall' if we're comparing it with human behaviour. At launch it was did things better than HoI3 did after three expansions and numerous patches (although it did also do some things worse). In it's current state, it's comfortably better than HoI3. Does it still have issues? Sure - and I've made numerous posts about them (not so many lately, because there haven't been many new developments, so there's not much new to be said).
• The reduction in complexity is also questionable - in selected areas, there absolutely has been a reduction in complexity, but in other areas it's been increased. The division designer and equipment production is substantially more complex than HoI's past. Navies are single-ship for subs and destroyers instead of flotillas, and naval combat (while still flawed in many areas) is deeper than it was in HoI3, with the addition of torpedoes and carriers acting far more historically plausibly.

Again, I'm not suggesting people don't have a right to complain, or a right to be unhappy, but if they're unhappy because:

• HoI4 launched in a worst state than HoI3 launched;
• Late game lag in HoI4 is worse than HoI3 (if my computer is a fair indication - this may not be the case);
• The AI in HoI4 is noticeably worse than the AI in HoI3; or
• HoI4 is noticeably less complex than HoI3 in an aggregate sense (as opposed to specific areas - OOBs and espionage for example);

....then they may want to do a quick fact-check, and base their anger or dissatisfaction on more solid ground (not least as feeling angry and dissatisfied isn't fun - may as well do it for a good reason!)

Yeah it got really ugly. Here are some choice highlights:

Some of these (and the others I didn't copy over) got as many as 80 "points" (meaning ~80 people +1ing the post on average).

Cheers, good to know where you're coming from . It does sound like there are a large group of dissatisfied people over on reddit, and regardless of the validity of the complaints, that does make your point totally valid. At the end of the day, even if there's a bunch of angry punters who are angry because they're viewing the past through rose-tinted glasses, or have a bad case of Gamer Entitlement Syndrome, they're still customers that need to be kept in mind.

It's nonsensical AI stupidity like this that's a huge immersion-breaker for me.

Sure you can give the AI cheats, play a smaller country, handicap yourself by making poor gameplay decisions etc. Just generally making the game more tedious and micro-intensive for yourself while the AI still derps just like before, except with ten times the units. Personally for me that doesn't feel very immersive at that point. And I think one of the big reasons people play WW2 GSGs is to try and get that feeling of immersion. But I and most of the players I know that play this game just can't get that feeling against the AI.

But if it works for you, then good for you I guess.

I don't see a huge amount of this - Germany getting too gung-ho with its wars is the worst issue, but up until Germany declares war on the USSR in 1942 regardless of the strategic situation, they behave pretty well for me now on land (slightly better in the mod I'm playing, but still pretty solid in vanilla - and this comment does remind me I should think about doing something re; the USSR ). I don't play with any slider advantage to the AI (or me - I'm not that bad at the game ) , and I don't give the AI free units or anything else.

That's not to say there aren't still issues. There are huge issues with the strategic naval AI, and the production AI wastes a lot of its efficiency bonus and seems to be less keen on aircraft 1.4.*, and there are definitely issues with the AI recognising danger in allied nations (Germany ignoring Greece, for example) and grinding it's equipment and manpower down 'over-attacking', and Africa, while not as wrong as it used to be, still isn't right - but by-and-large I still get substantial periods of enjoyably immersive gameplay.

 

[Ksyr]

You don't need to do any of these things to capitulate AI Germany in 1939 as the UK for example.

If you restrict yourself to 100% historical templates, doctrines, laws, research choices etc. (meanwhile the AI does not restrict itself to such things) and give the AI a lot of cheats, allowing them to field millions more men than historically, then maybe you won't win the game in 1939. But does that feel like a WW2 game anymore; Germany with hundreds of divisions in September 1939? And is it fun to intentionally remain on toaster economy till WW2 just to give the terrible AI an edge? Maybe some people enjoy that kind of thing, but I certainly don't.

For me it is not about winning or not because I always win against AI. It's about how I win and the journey to the end game.

 

[Ksyr]

I think "Minimap DLC" is one of the worst concepts so far, on par with "Horse Armor DLC"

Do you expect this DLC to have only a mini map? Otherwise your comparison is lacking.

 

[Skoodge]

Would it be possible to toggle the AI kicking "low contribution allies" from the faction during wartime? or making some countries from the faction to leave the war because they have sustained a large damage to their fighting force \ lost too much provinces? just comes in mind, Russia during WWl had to leave the war to deal with its own raging civil war while handling some land.

 

[Archangel85]

@podcat @Archangel85 @KimchiViking please be aware that the reception to the minimap being part of the DLC is overwhelmingly negative on both r/hoi4 and r/paradoxplaza. It's also not very good here. I would strongly recommend reconsidering the decision to include that feature as part of the paid content, even if for no reason other than cynical PR management. Even if that means we get a minimap for free but pinging is paid (to my knowledge we've never had pinging before) that would be an improvement. You were all doing so damn well with the dev diaries up to this point and locking something as fundamentally basic as a minimap has lost you a fair chunk of that goodwill from the community.

I understand the pressure to include features as part of the DLC since so many big changes are coming for free (and you need to make up the $25 price point to fulfill the contract with consumers you made with the season pass) but this is Blitz all over again - actually arguably less defensible than Blitz because at least that was a feature we'd never had before.

Suffice to say that the people on the team who argued for the Chain of Command feature to be free (which it really shouldn't, given the development time it took) instead of the damn minimap have a lot of egg on their face now.

 

[CrazyZombie]

Suffice to say that the people on the team who argued for the Chain of Command feature to be free (which it really shouldn't, given the development time it took) instead of the damn minimap have a lot of egg on their face now.

Well, things happen...

Anyway, there is no much difference, technically, what will go for free and what will come in paid DLC, as who ever plays Paradox-games without DLCs?

And you are here the only ones, who chose, what would be added in which way. But we expect you to rise your games to the new levels of greatness, so sometimes we are too "critical" in relation to things that are not worth it. Sorry for that.

 

[Porkman]

That's fine, I was just pointing out that some people genuinely believe that @podcat is intentionally ignoring good features from previous versions of HOI, because he's either an idiot or malicious.

"It wouldn't work with the current design philosophy of the game" is not a satisfactory answer apparently.

That was me, primarily, though I wasn't the only one. I didn't believe that @podcat was idiotic or malicious. Rather I believed he was being willfully ignorant.

It was like watching someone try to fix a computer problem and then seeing them refuse to use google to look to see if anyone had solved the problem before. Making it more infuriating was that afterwards, podcat would say, "there isn't a way to solve said problem" and watching the development of HOI4 has been like watching them reinvent the wheel.

I would have been happy with "It wouldn't work with the current design philosophy of the game..."

but that wasn't the case.

The case was, "No one in the dev team ever bothered to look at AOD or DH... but we know, without looking, that nothing in there would work for the current design philosophy of the game."

AOD was released in 2010.

Now 6-7 years later, we get to see podcat talk about "diminishing returns to strategic bombing," "separate oil and rares tracks for synthetic refineries" and other things that were in AOD but that the HOI4 team had to waste man hours to rediscover.

It was the lack of familiarity that was galling. Any student of World War 2 knows how much technological development in, for example, Japanese air power was hampered because the Navy and the Army refused to share info and collaborate.

That the HOI4 team was doing the same vis a vis the two HOI2 successor games was similarly galling. Especially because people on the forums kept on saying... "please take a look at this cool feature from AOD or DH."

 

[adam_grif]

@Axe99 with several of the things you're saying you're preaching to the choir - I myself have made extensive posts, both here and on reddit, highlighting that HoI4 was "less broken" than HoI3 at launch. However, the truth of the matter is that HoI4 was not competing with HoI3 at launch, it was being compared to more recent games that people remembered (EU4, CK2, and HoI4's nearly concurrent launch alongside Stellaris) which launched much more smoothly, and when people jumped back and compared to HoI3 they tended to compare to it as it existed circa Their Finest Hour. You could say that's unfair, and maybe it is, but the launch of the game is when people started getting +10 revolt risk in the forums. You probably remember a lot of rhetoric here about "why are Paradox making DLC when the base game isn't even fixed yet?!" when Together For Victory was first announced as a result.

Suffice to say that the people on the team who argued for the Chain of Command feature to be free (which it really shouldn't, given the development time it took) instead of the damn minimap have a lot of egg on their face now.

Archangel, you were hanging out here and I'm sure you are well aware that the community is very happy that Chain of Command is a free feature. You were all commended for making the right decision about that feature. The dev diary it launched alongside was the most positively received - and one that had the fewest "disagrees" and angry responses - of any diary I can remember in the post launch period. That doesn't make the decision vis a vis Minimap "good". I'm an expansion pass holder, so in theory I shouldn't care - I'm getting this all no matter what. I already paid for this expansion at launch by grabbing the FM edition. But I firmly believe - and I'm not alone - that a basic QoL feature that has always been featured in past HoI4s and every other mainline paradox game (except Stellaris as discussed above) really is not fodder for expansion DLCs.

I'm not demanding you change your mind on the spot, I have no power over you or anybody on the team nor pretensions that anybody in your office gives a crap about what I personally think. But nevertheless I implore you as a fan (and somebody who has received innumerable downvotes and flames for arguing in your favour whenever people get mad about the DLC model) to have another discussion about whether such a modest feature is really so critical to the value proposition of the upcoming expansion that it would make or break it.

 

[cunningstunts]

I hear ya. The team mostly agree it doesnt really fit anymore in HOI4 (cant remember if HOI2 had it, but HOI3 did). It comes with some problems to solve though, but its something we are thinking about and I suspect it will change. If not for 1.5 then a later patch

I understand you've got priorities and certain things on your radar for this patch, but please consider doing the auto-join in this patch or at least in a hotfix patch.

Even just an event that asks the player (if they're the faction leader) if they want to allow the auto-join would make a significant difference for the player, especially if you're playing the Allies. If you're not the faction leader then maybe it's fine to allow the auto-join, although the suggestion of linking it to guarantees is REALLY good imo. It would mean you have to be sure you want to stand up for that country.

 

[Archangel85]

Archangel, you were hanging out here and I'm sure you are well aware that the community is very happy that Chain of Command is a free feature. You were all commended for making the right decision about that feature. The dev diary it launched alongside was the most positively received - and one that had the fewest "disagrees" and angry responses - of any diary I can remember in the post launch period. That doesn't make the decision vis a vis Minimap "good". I'm an expansion pass holder, so in theory I shouldn't care - I'm getting this all no matter what. I already paid for this expansion at launch by grabbing the FM edition. But I firmly believe - and I'm not alone - that a basic QoL feature that has always been featured in past HoI4s and every other mainline paradox game (except Stellaris as discussed above) really is not fodder for expansion DLCs.

If we have stuff in the DLC that people want, they will call it a greedy cashgrab. If we don't, they will complain that there is no value. Some people claim that we should only be selling Focus trees, others consider this to be the height of greed and that all focus trees should be free. Some say that they will happily pay for new mechanics, others demand that core mechanics should not be paywalled. Making mechanics that don't interact with the game at large will piss off both groups. There is no good move here from a PR perspective. Any paid feature "should have been in the base game" as far as the community is concerned. I have never seen a community consensus on what type of stuff should be paid, and i suspect I never will. So saying that the community is upset about having to pay for content is a non-statement.

 

[Emre Yigit]

If we have stuff in the DLC that people want, they will call it a greedy cashgrab. If we don't, they will complain that there is no value. Some people claim that we should only be selling Focus trees, others consider this to be the height of greed and that all focus trees should be free. Some say that they will happily pay for new mechanics, others demand that core mechanics should not be paywalled. Making mechanics that don't interact with the game at large will piss off both groups. There is no good move here from a PR perspective. Any paid feature "should have been in the base game" as far as the community is concerned. I have never seen a community consensus on what type of stuff should be paid, and i suspect I never will. So saying that the community is upset about having to pay for content is a non-statement.

Things like "we hear your concerns" go a long way instead of saying "you're a bunch of ungrateful sods we can't satisfy whatever we do" - though to be honest I'd rather have your answer than some corporate-speak.

And as for "whatever we do" - well you guys don't ask anymore do you? In fact, you don't want to hear anymore; the poll feature has long since disappeared.

So, I apologise for continuing to spend time in this thread, but I don't agree with your summation either.

 

[Alex_brunius]

The best PR is sometimes not to get defensive. Things like "we hear your concerns" go a long way ... - though to be honest I'd rather have your answer than some corporate-speak.

I love Paradox for their honest replies and developer forum interaction with us fans. Understanding why they do what they do for me at least goes a long way to accepting it and seeing the logic behind it, even if I don't always agree with everything done.

Developers that either just don't interact at all or just have some PR guy that have no clue about the game make standard replies like "we understand your concerns" but never forwards anything so nothing ever happens just makes me lose all respect for the company and hope for the game.

 

[Emre Yigit]

I love Paradox for their honest replies and developer forum interaction with us fans. Understanding why they do what they do for me at least goes a long way to accepting it and seeing the logic behind it, even if I don't always agree with everything done.

Developers that either just don't interact at all or just have some PR guy that have no clue about the game make standard replies like "we understand your concerns" but never forwards anything so nothing ever happens just makes me lose all respect.

Yes, it's refreshing, and welcome. Even if I don't agree with the outcome!

 

[Solaxe]

Everybody's whining about paying for the blasted minimap when that's such an inconsequential feature compared to everything Paradox has revealed so far. You're not paying for a 'minimap DLC', you're paying for a large package of different features that will greatly add to the game experience - the minimap being a tiny piece of that. Wipe away your tears and just pay the $15 or $25 for the DLC and enjoy what the Paradox team have slaved away to make for us. I swear this must be the most ungrateful and self-entitled community on the Paradox forums.

How can people be entitled when they're paying a lot of hard-earned money for small dlcs? Do you even into logic?

 

[XYN]

If we have stuff in the DLC that people want, they will call it a greedy cashgrab. If we don't, they will complain that there is no value. Some people claim that we should only be selling Focus trees, others consider this to be the height of greed and that all focus trees should be free. Some say that they will happily pay for new mechanics, others demand that core mechanics should not be paywalled. Making mechanics that don't interact with the game at large will piss off both groups. There is no good move here from a PR perspective. Any paid feature "should have been in the base game" as far as the community is concerned. I have never seen a community consensus on what type of stuff should be paid, and i suspect I never will. So saying that the community is upset about having to pay for content is a non-statement.

Get back to non optional iterative expansions and make everything paid.

 

[Axe99]

@Axe99 with several of the things you're saying you're preaching to the choir - I myself have made extensive posts, both here and on reddit, highlighting that HoI4 was "less broken" than HoI3 at launch. However, the truth of the matter is that HoI4 was not competing with HoI3 at launch, it was being compared to more recent games that people remembered (EU4, CK2, and HoI4's nearly concurrent launch alongside Stellaris) which launched much more smoothly, and when people jumped back and compared to HoI3 they tended to compare to it as it existed circa Their Finest Hour. You could say that's unfair, and maybe it is, but the launch of the game is when people started getting +10 revolt risk in the forums. You probably remember a lot of rhetoric here about "why are Paradox making DLC when the base game isn't even fixed yet?!" when Together For Victory was first announced as a result.

I'll try not to ramble on too much (I think I've filled my quota for the week already - sorry, I'm trying to not go on too much) but I would agree that this is what's happening, and you're a very reasonable poster as well (I'm not attacking you in any way, shape or form, and would hope to be tarred and feathered if I did ), but I'd these comparisons are unfair and simplistic, and that if people build expectations on poor analysis, they're only creating disappointment for themselves. That's something that's out of anyone's control but the individuals building up an understanding of the world that is setting them up for disappointment. I suspect that Paradox is also between a rock and a hard place, because (and it's impossible to test this, of course), I suspect other features that are being provided for free would have caused a similar (or larger) fracas had they not been so - and so poor old Paradox marketing has to ask the question of "which features in DLC will cause the least discontent from people who've built their expectations on simplistic and unrealistic expectations of what is feasible?" which is a very, very difficult question to answer.

As before - I'm not saying your argument is wrong, and I'm definitely not saying surfacing the discontent on reddit or elsewhere is wrong (anything but - we should all talk together even if we can't always agree ) - I just don't think there's an easy answer for Paradox here, or that necessarily the fracas on reddit definitively means they've made the wrong one.

The issue is that there are quite a number of people - more than Paradox is willing to admit - who consider that a minimap is an old, established, hence integral even if uncritical feature. And for us, re-introducing it as part of DLC paid content is surprising. As someone else said earlier, I think, what next? "Three additional ledger pages which we ignored during development will now be part of the DLC"?

Now, obviously quite a number of people - possibly larger than the first unhappy group - are fine with this. That's OK too. When you say that time spent coding for a minimap would have taken away from other stuff, I agree. However, the fact that they could not implement the minimap in the release, because it would have delayed the game development does not mean that they shouldn't have included it. And if they should have included it - which is what I and all those who are currently a bit miffed are saying - then it's re-introduction cannot be "We have the minimap back, thank us, woohoo, it's a paid feature of the DLC". That's a little complacent and tone deaf.

Dear Emre .

Aye totally get where you're coming from - it's the crux of the issue, the disconnect between the fact that all extra work on the game takes resources that cost money that needs to be recouped with profit if the game's development is to continue (so, in effect, really we should be paying for everything) and the fact that lots of people have their own views of how the game should be designed, and complain that if the game doesn't include what they think should be in it, then it should be included in the future for free, economics be damned. The game does work without the minimap - it's not broken, without it in any way shape or form (and I'm one of the people who is glad the minimap is back, who missed it's lack of success in making the core list of features, and who expects to use it a lot once it's out).

I actually wouldn't be surprised if the ledger (if we get one) does end up as DLC at some point, because it's the kind of feature that makes more sense there than others - and it would be a fair and reasonable thing to do, even if some people in the community thought otherwise.

Also, I'm not sure Podcat said "thank us, woohoo, it's a paid feature of the DLC" - the quote from the DD is:

A minimap is something HOI4 was designed to live without, but there is clearly a part of the community that
really miss it, so you can now get it as part of the DLC if you want.

My best guess is that this was tucked away in here after a few 'good' features, as some of the minimap discontent was anticipated (but very likely unavoidable, as per my response to Adam), and that we'll see some bigger DLC features that people will get more excited about in the next few weeks.

The longer term issue here, and one which I imagine Paradox management will spend many long hours pondering is: how does one progress the game? I.e. what comes after CK2? After EU4? After HOI4? For example, CK2 has 14 gameplay DLCs and many shield, portrait, unit and music mini-DLCs. Despite the fact that the game is 5 years old, which means it has started to get a little long in the tooth, can they go to CK3 in, say, three years' time and expect everyone to buy just the base game and wait for DLCs?

As you rightly say, this is a huge expectation management issue - I have lots of ideas about lots of things, but I'm not sure how I'd go about solving this one, it's not an easy nut to crack (at least optimally). Everyone, if they were sensible, would expect the base game to be more limited than 'final CK2' because a new engine and new underlying structures in the code would mean a lot of new work, but I'm quite sure that's not how it'll go down if that's how it goes.

 

[bitmode]

If we have stuff in the DLC that people want, they will call it a greedy cashgrab. If we don't, they will complain that there is no value. Some people claim that we should only be selling Focus trees, others consider this to be the height of greed and that all focus trees should be free. Some say that they will happily pay for new mechanics, others demand that core mechanics should not be paywalled. Making mechanics that don't interact with the game at large will piss off both groups. There is no good move here from a PR perspective. Any paid feature "should have been in the base game" as far as the community is concerned. I have never seen a community consensus on what type of stuff should be paid, and i suspect I never will. So saying that the community is upset about having to pay for content is a non-statement.

So much this. Imo the rough distinction between paid/free should be that everything incurring disproportionate technical debt when kept optional should be free. And all optional bells and whistles go in the DLC. The mini map (or the spearhead command for that matter) are even more detached from the core game than some of DLC focus trees, as the latter often require changes to the vanilla focus trees as well.

And not having played HoI3 I'm actually sad they spent any time on (re-)implementing this mini map (instead of fixing more bugs) in a game where you can zoom out to a world overview in a second. Removing something can also be feature

another discussion about whether such a modest feature is really so critical to the value proposition of the upcoming expansion

I'd turn this question around: why NOT put a feature that's largely orthogonal to the rest of the game in a DLC? It's not like the free patch needs a value proposition...

 

[SpartanB12]

How can people be entitled when they're paying a lot of hard-earned money for small dlcs? Do you even into logic?

"a lot"??? I don't know if you work minimum wage in the Dominican Republic, but last I checked the most expensive HOI4 DLC was $15USD which is hardly a price to be up-in-arms over. You're buying what is ADVERTISED by the way, you are willingly and knowingly purchasing this item KNOWING what it does and does not include. If you want to whine over spending $15 for content then don't buy it, I am happy to pay upwards of $15 (lunch money) for content that will enrich my gaming experience for tens of hours. Do you even into logic, bro?