• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

qer

Lt. General
26 Badges
Nov 12, 2011
1.512
2.688
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • 500k Club
  • Victoria 2
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Darkest Hour
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Cities: Skylines
The current DLC system is, in my opinion, going to be unsustainable in a few months. Why? Because instead of two, there are going to be four games getting 3 DLC (+ extras) each per year. No matter if you love the DLC system or hate, it is probably the more expensive to keep up in the market. Most of us like to keep the game up-dated and play with the last expansions in each game. However I fear that by adding 2 new games with the same DLC policy, is going to be too much. So that's why I'am suggesting a different approach for the older games. Instead of a 4 month cycle, a 6month cycle for CK2 and EU4. While the newer games should keep the old model, I think that the older games should focus on DLC for polishing , with a bit more content than the normal ones (similar to the expansions of old) simply put, I don't think it would be a big change in pdx earnings, but it will also bring a higher standard for DLC probably making the games to remain competitive for more time
 
  • 40
  • 13
  • 1
Reactions:
Two things, it would literally lower revenue by 33% simply by having 1 3rd less dlc. But I do think this is going to be the case anyways as they move people away from ck 2 and eu4, to stellaris and hoi 4 and possibly Victoria 3 will be in development soon or is already in development.

Note I said revenue as it most likely costs more and more to maintain all the dlc and updates over time, increasing the cost to make even simple dlc.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Certain topics are banned from any mention on these forums. Please remember the rules you agreed to follow when you signed up to our forums. Thank you.
 
There will definitely not be three CK 2 DLCs this year. They have made it clear it CK 2 is slowing down. EU IV will probably follow soon, to make room for Stellaris and HoI 4 to get most of the attention.
 
My only problem is every time they release a DLC, they announce a new DLC shortly after. So if I'm starting a grand campaign, I feel rushed to finish or like I shouldn't play until the new expansion comes out. So I'm essentially just waiting for the last DLC for CK2 and EU4. Stop the madness! I don't need sailors! It's fine! Save it for EUV for the love of Pete!
 
  • 9
  • 3
  • 2
Reactions:
My only problem is every time they release a DLC, they announce a new DLC shortly after. So if I'm starting a grand campaign, I feel rushed to finish or like I shouldn't play until the new expansion comes out. So I'm essentially just waiting for the last DLC for CK2 and EU4. Stop the madness! I don't need sailors! It's fine! Save it for EUV for the love of Pete!
I too suffer from DLC paralysis. In my case it works like this:
  1. Oooh, a new DLC is announced!
  2. Well those features in the DD look nifty...
  3. ... I don't want to play without them, I'll wait.
  4. It's out, yay!
  5. Oh, I'll wait for the hotfix and play then.
  6. Finally, I can play... oooh, a new DLC is announced!
It's an endless cycle of suffering and rebirth, from which I could only be liberated by letting go my craving to DLC features... Excuse me while I go meditate under a tree or something ;)
 
  • 31
  • 1
Reactions:
or you know... they could just hire more people and make more teams? That would be the logical option. I think they should definitely keep EU4 around for a long time. We don't need EU5 when the engine is still perfectly fine. Just space out the DLC time and make the expansions more substantial and keep pounding bugs away from the previous DLC.

CK2 is more limited by the engine currently.
 
  • 3
  • 3
Reactions:
The team has expanded heavily over the past couple of years, bearing in mind CK2 must be coming towards the end of its lifecycle I'd hazard a guess they are capable of maintaining 3/4 games worth of DLC at the same time. If anything the problem for them is going to be making sure they are properly spaced out for release.
 
Even loyal fans have a limit to their money. It would feel wrong when such fans have to choose between Paradox games because Paradox releases too much content for too much money.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
I slowly get the same feeling. I didn't buy the last two CK2 DLCs and didn't play EU4 since almost 3 months now. Instead, I run session after session of HoI3 to be somewhat prepared for D-Day, as seeing other playing HoI4 makes me want to play the best substitute I've got, and that is HoI3.

Additionally, I know exactly EU4 can't compete with Stellaris once its out, so I have no problem waiting a month for Stellaris after EU4s newest expansion comes out - I won't buy it instantly.

I probably mob up all missing DLCs in the Halloween or Christmas sales, but thats it. You just can't play 4 grand strategy games parallel if one alone sucks up more time than you've got (and this is a student with ~25hours "work" a week speaking, so...)
 
  • 1
Reactions:
They'll only keep making them if we keep buying them. So I'm going to still pick them up. I know Stellaris and HOI4 are going to be massive time sinks, but I'd want to have EU4 to come back to later.

I wouldn't mind if they take their time on the next EU4 expansion and really make it content packed and spend time smashing bugs and AI. It would be a good time for it, as we'll all be pouring time into the new titles.
 
I doubt they'll slow down making DLCs. For one, the Paradox games have been expanding in terms of separate interests. People who play CK2 might not be interested in Stellaris, and people who play Stellaris might not be interested in HoI4. So in terms of playerbase overlap draining from the same source, it's not a very big problem. Of course there will be those who buy EVERY Paradox game ever, but those are probably the exceptions rather than the norm. They could also just hire more people to make DLCs, which is likely the case in the future.
 
Last edited:
  • 2
Reactions:
Exactly. There is plenty of room for all these titles, as they're all worth keeping around for whatever time period or setting you want to play.
 
I think there's a technical issue with the DLC policy as well: they make the game a lot harder to maintain, balance and expand further.

It used to be fairly easy: in CK2, each DLC used to be a mere unlock - one did the balancing in the patch and the DLC ownership governs simply whether a certain part of the world is playable. This is fairly easy from a technical point of view.

Enter EU4 and its DLC model. This time it's noticeably different, because instead of unlocking mechanics, they add new ones. The problem is, for n expansions, one needs to do at worst 2ⁿ different systems - one for each possible combination of DLC.

A brief example with development from EU4: Common Sense. They need two mechanics at the moment: one with and one without development. This means that they have to introduce alternatives to bonuses that usually grant development, and I don't know if they actually did it, but they at least should've tweaked a lot of numbers as well to keep the game balanced and sensible without the development mechanic. That's a lot of work. Now suppose they add a new DLC that changes the way Development works (I'd like to see that, btw!) - they'd have to have four different modes for how development works: both DLC, one DLC, the other DLC, and no DLC. It's a hell of a workload, so they'll probably just avoid touching development in DLC ever, ever again.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
I think the upside to the DLCs is that Pdx is updating and maintaining their games while developing new content. But I think there is a disconnection between what the base game costs and what the DLCs cost. The DLCs sometimes don't add much to the game, like a few more character traits but cost between 5 and 15 euros. I have spent so much money on DLCs that I start to say it's enough, I wont buy them anymore. And it is a lot of money! Crusader Kings collection on steam 144 Euro, this is madness! You know some people have to work at low-income jobs, this is way too much money for what it offers! Also these bundles which make the DLCs a bit more affordable aren't much of an option for fans who buy the basegame the day it releases. Still sometimes I end up buying the base game in bundles more than once, I think I own 2 copies of HOI3 and CK2 each (one gamersgate, one steam)?#
Instead of the current DLC policy, I would even be willing to pay some kind of monthly or yearly abo for pdx games which then should include some content DLCs. I think with the EU4 and CK2 DLCs they are really squeezing their fans too much.
 
Last edited:
  • 3
Reactions:
I think the upside to the DLCs is that Pdx is updating and maintaining their games while developing new content. But I think there is a disconnection between what the base game costs and what the DLCs cost. The DLCs sometimes don't add much to the game, like a few more character traits but cost between 5 and 15 euros. I have spent so much money on DLCs that I start to say it's enough, I wont buy them anymore. And it is a lot of money! Crusader Kings collection on steam 144 Euro, this is madness! You know some people have to work at low-income jobs, this is way too much money for what it offers! Also these bundles which make the DLCs a bit more affordable aren't much of an option for fans who buy the basegame the day it releases. Still sometimes I end up buying the base game in bundles more than once, I think I own 2 copies of HOI3 and CK2 each (one gamersgate, one steam)?#
Instead of the current DLC policy, I would even be willing to pay some kind of monthly or yearly abo for pdx games which then should include some content DLCs. I think with the EU4 and CK2 DLCs they are really squeezing their fans too much.

I think the issue is these are mass market games really. This are rather niche games. They're working to make these games more accessibility to the general market it would seem from the new titles. I think that half the reason the DLC is so expensive, there just isn't enough people buying it. So the cost is subsidized by the hardcore fans. We are in turn paying for the game to continue being supported long term.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
A brief example with development from EU4: Common Sense. They need two mechanics at the moment: one with and one without development. This means that they have to introduce alternatives to bonuses that usually grant development, and I don't know if they actually did it, but they at least should've tweaked a lot of numbers as well to keep the game balanced and sensible without the development mechanic. That's a lot of work. Now suppose they add a new DLC that changes the way Development works (I'd like to see that, btw!) - they'd have to have four different modes for how development works: both DLC, one DLC, the other DLC, and no DLC. It's a hell of a workload, so they'll probably just avoid touching development in DLC ever, ever again.

Common Sense (CS) is more than an example: it was the turning point in this problem. As you say, it would be an enormous job to properly balance all the other DLCs with and without development. Development affects every province in the game, without exception, and has consequences for almost every other mechanic, because buildings (which are controlled by development) are so limited without development. So PDS has effectively decided to give players a binary choice:
- play 1.11.4 and enjoy a great game without development, with the option of extra features from DLC like Art of War and Res Publica.
- play the latest patch with Common Sense and enjoy a great game including development, with the option of extra features from any DLC.

There is no realistic option of playing patches 1.12+ without CS. I'm tried it as a role-player and it was no fun; I would imagine that people who like min-maxing would find it even more frustrating. However, PDS have provided two good options, so I'm not complaining about a sensible business decision. However, it might have been easier for both existing and new players if CS had been labelled as an 'expansion' rather than a DLC and made obligatory for subsequent DLC.
 
  • 3
Reactions: