Right now, PDS pretty much holds a monopoly over the Grand Strategy genre. This worked out pretty well for both the company and the players in the past. An active, loyal and, let's say, culturally distinct, player base generated a relatively stable demand for new games, PDS strived towards quality content (not least because they care about the games they make, I think) despite often flawed initial releases and mods simulated competition and provided for what the vanilla games wouldn't. In fact, the active modding scene made competition kinda obsolete.
All of this is changing.
EU IV, CK2, Stellaris and HoI4 currently get abysmal ratings on Steam. The reasons are the same across the board:
1. Bugs and broken AI. Stellaris has been rough to amost unplayable for the longest time since its release and the AI in HoI4 is still.. a bit slow on the uptake. The situation prevails even a year after release. From what I gather (I was always a late adapter) previous Paradox titles improved much farther.
2. Rushed releases and lack of QA. Third Rome felt like it came out a week after Mandate of Heaven. Even if it was the best dlc ever, this would still be odd. Stellaris, again, sets the negative standard. The patch that was supposed to be a fixpatch and not a content patch broke the game so hard that it was utterly unplayable for a while. The problems where so immediate and easy to spot that people got the impression that there was simply zero QA involved in the development process.
3. Outright bad dlc content. Monks & Mystics is currently burned at the stake and the HoI4 dlcs seem to provide little extra value for top bucks. The overall rating drop correlates strongly with the recent release of dlcs. This shows across the full spectrum of PDS's core products (only Utopia maintains, for reasons I don't understand, a positive score, while the base game has deteriorated in rating along with it's brothers and sisters).
4. A defensive attitude towards price inflation. Inflation is a normal part of capitalist economy and Sweden is certainly not the cheapest place to live or run a business. Yet, while noone notices a banana suddenly costing 0.37 instead of 0.33 €, a price increase in video games is always easy to spot and contrasted with the broader market situation and expectations based on the past. This has lead to lots of complaints about PDS's recent price spikes. But raw inflation is not the problem!
It's the lack of an adaptive pricing and content development strategy and a very defensive mindset regarding these issues. When people asked why Utopia (I think it was Utopia) didn't meet the content point requirements for its price, the answer was it took us this much time. The answer demanded understanding for the sudio's perspective while completely disregarding the players' and disappointing previous, officially sanctioned expectations. [Sorry, I don't have a link to that statement anymore; it may well have been an individual opinion. This is only anecdotal evidence for a broader problem that also shows itself in raw numbers.]. I would like to see an official statement about this, so far I only found this shady argument about purchasing power (scroll down a bit). As I do not think PDS is a "greedy mainstream robber corporation", I believe that the recent price explosion has more to do with the cost and shortage of labour in Sweden than any other reason that is external to the company, unless Steam's share of the pie is breaking their neck (as does rent - not taxes - for many small gastronomy business owners). It could be the cost of growth, though, as in capital demand for expansion and marketing.
The point I try to make is that this strategy of adaptation (or lack thereof) is bad and hurts the company in the long run. There are alternative methods of funding (crowdfunding or, you know, bank loans) and there are alternative methods of "packaging" content. If you put out the same - or even less - amount of content for an increased price, people are bound to get mad. A return to the good old Addon should at least have been discussed. The high prices may actually discourage so many people from buying the dlcs or even future content that charging 5€ for everything would have generated a net plus. Needless to say, the forums would be much more peaceful right now. If the financial situation changes, sometimes it's not enough to just change prices.
And now parts of the community are in uproar and, I think, will resort to open mutiny should "the situation" prevail for another year or so. Yes, sales and raw hours played seem to be increasing still, but if Paradox continues to fall short of the expectations of the vocal, core player base, they will suffer great pain:
1. Dropping ratings and bad reviews will hurt their reputation among non-loyal "casuals", no matter how much they try to cater to them. Short term cash-generation can be a long-term loss. Good will and consumer loyalty can be lost.
2. Even if the vocal critics are just a minority among the player base, they play huge part in the community and the culture that has so far sustained the company. Driving them away would mean that PDS had to rely more on the broader market, which in turn would increase marketing costs. Even if we disregard the artistic and professional side, it's not at all clear if this can work out financially. Obviously, I don't have any numbers on this. But take note on how what the high marketing costs do to the movie industry.
3. Modders will be discouraged from investing their precious time if they feel that a game is not worth it. The beta of MEIOU & Taxes 2.0 and the work on Kaiserreich mark a current spike in modding activity, which is a blessing in these troubled times. But there is no guarantee that the modders will remain this active, if the mistakes of the present are repeated in the future. Bugs spell death on ambitious modding projects and a disgruntled community curbs motivation. There is also the issue of complexity. Mods require complex games, because they'd have nothing to fumble with otherwise. I'd be very interested in the relative "strength" of mods in Stellaris compared to other Paradox games. Personally, I expect the Stellaris modding scene to die within the year.
4. Should "the situation" continue for too long, the first serious competitor will crack open the monopoly. PDS's own growth and the inclusion of a greater player base already creates opportunities for competitors. In the end it may be their own former modders that draw the dagger, trying to feed on the disgruntled core players. Or a major studio decides to go ahead and grab a share of the market.
Now, why should competition be a bad thing?
If the niche is too small, noone will be able to make sufficient, sustainable profit. PDS would likely survive this, as they have broadened their business model over the years and are still continuing to do so. But who knows what lessons would be learned from such a development? How would they treat their core franchises? What would be cut out, what prioritized? How would the monetization strategy change? Most people and organizations tend to "play save" and try to adapt to whatever they perceive as being in line with the mainstream. Few have the courage to cater to a niche, especially if they previously had greater aspirations.
There is also no guarantee that any competitor can provide superior quality, even by today's standards. They would need a lot of funding, manpower and creative energy. And they may split the community, furthering its disintegration. No more mods for anybody. No more Paradox Con. And probably no more decent grand strategy games for a long while, only clones and self-clones. At least, from what I gather from this interview, PDS's overall disposition seems to be sound at the very top.
This is just an outline of a possible future. It may be a bit too bleak and obviously I lack access to many hard facts to come to a more sound judgement. I'd like to be disproven and see that the disappointments of 2016/2017 were only a temporary setback.
All of this is changing.
EU IV, CK2, Stellaris and HoI4 currently get abysmal ratings on Steam. The reasons are the same across the board:
1. Bugs and broken AI. Stellaris has been rough to amost unplayable for the longest time since its release and the AI in HoI4 is still.. a bit slow on the uptake. The situation prevails even a year after release. From what I gather (I was always a late adapter) previous Paradox titles improved much farther.
2. Rushed releases and lack of QA. Third Rome felt like it came out a week after Mandate of Heaven. Even if it was the best dlc ever, this would still be odd. Stellaris, again, sets the negative standard. The patch that was supposed to be a fixpatch and not a content patch broke the game so hard that it was utterly unplayable for a while. The problems where so immediate and easy to spot that people got the impression that there was simply zero QA involved in the development process.
3. Outright bad dlc content. Monks & Mystics is currently burned at the stake and the HoI4 dlcs seem to provide little extra value for top bucks. The overall rating drop correlates strongly with the recent release of dlcs. This shows across the full spectrum of PDS's core products (only Utopia maintains, for reasons I don't understand, a positive score, while the base game has deteriorated in rating along with it's brothers and sisters).
4. A defensive attitude towards price inflation. Inflation is a normal part of capitalist economy and Sweden is certainly not the cheapest place to live or run a business. Yet, while noone notices a banana suddenly costing 0.37 instead of 0.33 €, a price increase in video games is always easy to spot and contrasted with the broader market situation and expectations based on the past. This has lead to lots of complaints about PDS's recent price spikes. But raw inflation is not the problem!
It's the lack of an adaptive pricing and content development strategy and a very defensive mindset regarding these issues. When people asked why Utopia (I think it was Utopia) didn't meet the content point requirements for its price, the answer was it took us this much time. The answer demanded understanding for the sudio's perspective while completely disregarding the players' and disappointing previous, officially sanctioned expectations. [Sorry, I don't have a link to that statement anymore; it may well have been an individual opinion. This is only anecdotal evidence for a broader problem that also shows itself in raw numbers.]. I would like to see an official statement about this, so far I only found this shady argument about purchasing power (scroll down a bit). As I do not think PDS is a "greedy mainstream robber corporation", I believe that the recent price explosion has more to do with the cost and shortage of labour in Sweden than any other reason that is external to the company, unless Steam's share of the pie is breaking their neck (as does rent - not taxes - for many small gastronomy business owners). It could be the cost of growth, though, as in capital demand for expansion and marketing.
The point I try to make is that this strategy of adaptation (or lack thereof) is bad and hurts the company in the long run. There are alternative methods of funding (crowdfunding or, you know, bank loans) and there are alternative methods of "packaging" content. If you put out the same - or even less - amount of content for an increased price, people are bound to get mad. A return to the good old Addon should at least have been discussed. The high prices may actually discourage so many people from buying the dlcs or even future content that charging 5€ for everything would have generated a net plus. Needless to say, the forums would be much more peaceful right now. If the financial situation changes, sometimes it's not enough to just change prices.
And now parts of the community are in uproar and, I think, will resort to open mutiny should "the situation" prevail for another year or so. Yes, sales and raw hours played seem to be increasing still, but if Paradox continues to fall short of the expectations of the vocal, core player base, they will suffer great pain:
1. Dropping ratings and bad reviews will hurt their reputation among non-loyal "casuals", no matter how much they try to cater to them. Short term cash-generation can be a long-term loss. Good will and consumer loyalty can be lost.
2. Even if the vocal critics are just a minority among the player base, they play huge part in the community and the culture that has so far sustained the company. Driving them away would mean that PDS had to rely more on the broader market, which in turn would increase marketing costs. Even if we disregard the artistic and professional side, it's not at all clear if this can work out financially. Obviously, I don't have any numbers on this. But take note on how what the high marketing costs do to the movie industry.
3. Modders will be discouraged from investing their precious time if they feel that a game is not worth it. The beta of MEIOU & Taxes 2.0 and the work on Kaiserreich mark a current spike in modding activity, which is a blessing in these troubled times. But there is no guarantee that the modders will remain this active, if the mistakes of the present are repeated in the future. Bugs spell death on ambitious modding projects and a disgruntled community curbs motivation. There is also the issue of complexity. Mods require complex games, because they'd have nothing to fumble with otherwise. I'd be very interested in the relative "strength" of mods in Stellaris compared to other Paradox games. Personally, I expect the Stellaris modding scene to die within the year.
4. Should "the situation" continue for too long, the first serious competitor will crack open the monopoly. PDS's own growth and the inclusion of a greater player base already creates opportunities for competitors. In the end it may be their own former modders that draw the dagger, trying to feed on the disgruntled core players. Or a major studio decides to go ahead and grab a share of the market.
Now, why should competition be a bad thing?
If the niche is too small, noone will be able to make sufficient, sustainable profit. PDS would likely survive this, as they have broadened their business model over the years and are still continuing to do so. But who knows what lessons would be learned from such a development? How would they treat their core franchises? What would be cut out, what prioritized? How would the monetization strategy change? Most people and organizations tend to "play save" and try to adapt to whatever they perceive as being in line with the mainstream. Few have the courage to cater to a niche, especially if they previously had greater aspirations.
There is also no guarantee that any competitor can provide superior quality, even by today's standards. They would need a lot of funding, manpower and creative energy. And they may split the community, furthering its disintegration. No more mods for anybody. No more Paradox Con. And probably no more decent grand strategy games for a long while, only clones and self-clones. At least, from what I gather from this interview, PDS's overall disposition seems to be sound at the very top.
This is just an outline of a possible future. It may be a bit too bleak and obviously I lack access to many hard facts to come to a more sound judgement. I'd like to be disproven and see that the disappointments of 2016/2017 were only a temporary setback.
Last edited:
.png){kind=avatar}
