Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

PDS's monopoly on grand strategy could fall - actually, this may be bad

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
brifbates said:
You're making the possibly flawed assumption that the "loyal old guard" is the group screaming about the DLC prices.
Click to expand...
Not just prices! But you may be right. I didn't put much thought into the term, just kind of put everyone who owned two or more pds games before 2016 (when Stellaris and HoI4 were released) together. That's awfully broad. I thought it fair to assume that it was the "old guard" doing most of the complaining, because all their games are being rated downhill at the moment, not just the recent ones. That may be a mistake, of course.
 
Nussor said:
Not just prices! But you may be right. I didn't put much thought into the term, just kind of put everyone who owned two or more pds games before 2016 (when Stellaris and HoI4 were released) together. That's awfully broad. I thought it fair to assume that it was the "old guard" doing most of the complaining, because all their games are being rated downhill at the moment, not just the recent ones. That may be a mistake, of course.
Click to expand...
I think I'm about as Old Guard as you can get, since I started with (and still have) EU1.

And I think all this wailing and gnasing of teeth is dumb.

*shrug*
 
I think the wailing and gnashing of teeth is a good thing, it shows that people are being conscious purchasers and this can help for all purchase in the future. We don't need people to pat them on the back but to challenge them. Money is a HUGE deal. Rampant DLCs that don't feel valuable is a huge deal. Honestly this year and last year has been the worst. I can't play CKII or EU4 anymore. Stellaris/HOIV is only replayable with mods, especially Stellaris. Especially Stellaris. I just don't see that as a game being "good". It'll get worse before it gets better. I want to see how it goes.
 
Baalshazar said:
I think the wailing and gnashing of teeth is a good thing, it shows that people are being conscious purchasers and this can help for all purchase in the future. We don't need people to pat them on the back but to challenge them. Money is a HUGE deal. Rampant DLCs that don't feel valuable is a huge deal. Honestly this year and last year has been the worst. I can't play CKII or EU4 anymore. Stellaris/HOIV is only replayable with mods, especially Stellaris. Especially Stellaris. I just don't see that as a game being "good". It'll get worse before it gets better. I want to see how it goes.
Click to expand...
The problem is when the consumer saying "This doesn't feel like it's worth it!" is being used to counter the producer saying "We won't make these if it doesn't sell at this price, and think for the work we put in it should be more."

I counted from 60+ different 3D models in the Plantoid's Pack. Remember, there's one model *per* module type for ships (and the same-sized ones have to all look good put together), 5 models for each size of military station, one model for each type of civilization station and civilian ship.

You can argue if you'd want to pay 8 or 9 dollars for it. But all too often I see all those 3D models simplified, with one person saying "one new ship type" to cover them.

I'm all for people saying "Well, for what this content is, I don't think it's worth the price." It's when they omit, mislead, or misunderstand what the content is, that I get a tad peeved. Those 3D models took a lot of time and effort, as did the animated portraits. I don't like seeing them misrepresented.

Is the pack priced reasonably considering the cost (including hourly-wages) of production? Yes. It is. In fact, it is priced VERY reasonably for what you get.

Is it worth spending my money on? Under any other circumstances than the shitstorm that happened because people wouldn't look past "I'm not willing to pay for it" and concluded "Therefore it's overpriced", I would not have bought the Plantoids pack. I've used it once, and haven't touched it since. I don't buy graphic packs normally because I don't care for graphics.

But people think their "Am I willing to spend this on thing" is the same as "Is this thing priced reasonably?". They're not the same question at all. They're both good questions to ask, but don't mistake the one for the other.
 
Summercat said:
The problem is when the consumer saying "This doesn't feel like it's worth it!" is being used to counter the producer saying "We won't make these if it doesn't sell at this price, and think for the work we put in it should be more."

I counted from 60+ different 3D models in the Plantoid's Pack. Remember, there's one model *per* module type for ships (and the same-sized ones have to all look good put together), 5 models for each size of military station, one model for each type of civilization station and civilian ship.

You can argue if you'd want to pay 8 or 9 dollars for it. But all too often I see all those 3D models simplified, with one person saying "one new ship type" to cover them.

I'm all for people saying "Well, for what this content is, I don't think it's worth the price." It's when they omit, mislead, or misunderstand what the content is, that I get a tad peeved. Those 3D models took a lot of time and effort, as did the animated portraits. I don't like seeing them misrepresented.

Is the pack priced reasonably considering the cost (including hourly-wages) of production? Yes. It is. In fact, it is priced VERY reasonably for what you get.

Is it worth spending my money on? Under any other circumstances than the shitstorm that happened because people wouldn't look past "I'm not willing to pay for it" and concluded "Therefore it's overpriced", I would not have bought the Plantoids pack. I've used it once, and haven't touched it since. I don't buy graphic packs normally because I don't care for graphics.

But people think their "Am I willing to spend this on thing" is the same as "Is this thing priced reasonably?". They're not the same question at all. They're both good questions to ask, but don't mistake the one for the other.
Click to expand...
More content then most potrait packs in other paradox games at the very least
 
Nussor said:
Not just prices! But you may be right. I didn't put much thought into the term, just kind of put everyone who owned two or more pds games before 2016 (when Stellaris and HoI4 were released) together. That's awfully broad. I thought it fair to assume that it was the "old guard" doing most of the complaining, because all their games are being rated downhill at the moment, not just the recent ones. That may be a mistake, of course.
Click to expand...
That is awfully broad. I owned EU IV and CK II prior to 2016, but I only discovered Paradox games in 2014 with EU IV and would hardly consider myself part of "the old guard", when there are people here who were playing Europa Universalis sans number.
 
I don't think PDS has a monopoly on grand strategy, there are others. As others have said, Paradox has always had a poor reputation with patching. They were really turning around though with the release of CK2 and EU4.

But, what is killing them is releasing new DLC and content patches too often. All the shine and polish that comes with the release of the full games isn't being done with the DLC. You can tell their DLC crew is rushed to put a product out there before they complete it. Not just the bugs, but straight up incomplete features. I really appreciate how they keep their games alive after all these years, and how they give away free content--but, they just need to slow it down. There's just a lot of disconnected features that don't really interact with each other on an intuitive level. If they released bigger content at a slower rate, features would be more fleshed out and feel like part of the game, rather than something that's only a bit more than a neat mod.
 
Hi,
Nussor said:
Now, why should competition be a bad thing?
If the niche is too small, noone will be able to make sufficient, sustainable profit.
Click to expand...
We probably need more data on the sociology of the niche. Purchasing power, time allocated to game (wife/husband and child are time consuming activities ... ) and much more. If the fan base are the peoples that plays Avalon Hills games in the 80's or people that was born with steam ...
That being said, I must agree for the risk of a community split if any serious competitor rise. I take the risk, I'm pretty sure there is a need of emulation in this niche. For both gameplay and AI point of view.
On a tactical scale you can find pure diamonds, and on GS scale ... well, the last pearl was Vicky 2 maybe (imho, I understand the people who like EU & CK)
 
"Grand Strategy" is a marketing descriptor. What Paradox does is unique, but by no means do they have a monopoly on the type of games they make. Games with the Clausewitz engine bear a lot of similarity other games of the 4X genre (eXplore, eXpand, eXploit, and eXterminate).

The original "Grand Strategy" company was MicroProse, which had Sid Meier working for them, that made turn based strategy games. The most famous game they made was Civilization. They also made Masters of Orion and Masters of Magic.

So there is no "monopoly" for Paradox to lose. If I get tired of Paradox games, I'll go play Civ 6 or Galactic Civilizations III.

To the Original Post's point, for me it doesn't hold water. EU4 and CK2 are landmark games, it doesn't surprise me that HoI4 and Stellaris don't measure up for some. Not every game Paradox makes will shatter expectations.

The pricing issue is a minor hiccup in the larger scheme of things.
 
Last edited:
frolix42 said:
"Grand Strategy" is a marketing descriptor. What Paradox does is unique, but by no means do they have a monopoly on the type of games they make. Games with the Clausewitz engine bear a lot of similarity other games of the 4X genre (eXplore, eXpand, eXploit, and eXterminate).

The original "Grand Strategy" company was MicroProse, which had Sid Meier working for them, that made turn based strategy games. The most famous game they made was Civilization. They also made Masters of Orion and Masters of Magic.
Click to expand...

I fully agree with this. Actually, Grand Strategy as a gameplay descriptor can easily be applied to any scenario-driven (as opposed to sandbox) 4X.
 
aruon said:
though it would probably have to be real-time pausable in time progression as opposed to turn based.
Click to expand...
That's not really a good standard. I'd say Koei's RoTK and NA series are grand strategy game, despite some of them being turn based. IMO, the difference is that 4X games focus on a random scenario, while a grand strategy game focuses on specific scenarios. This allows a grand strategy game to focus more on historicity, while a 4X game generally lacks any sort of that uniqueness. Oriental Empires, imo, is more of a grand strategy than a 4X game, for instance.
 
ringhloth said:
That's not really a good standard. I'd say Koei's RoTK and NA series are grand strategy game, despite some of them being turn based. IMO, the difference is that 4X games focus on a random scenario, while a grand strategy game focuses on specific scenarios. This allows a grand strategy game to focus more on historicity, while a 4X game generally lacks any sort of that uniqueness. Oriental Empires, imo, is more of a grand strategy than a 4X game, for instance.
Click to expand...

Those are interesting points. The game Imperialism could probably be categorized as Grand Strategy, I imagine.
 
Andrelvis said:
Those are interesting points. The game Imperialism could probably be categorized as Grand Strategy, I imagine.
Click to expand...
Yes, probably. There is a lot of overlap with 4X games and grand strategy, though, and it's often a spectrum. I mean, Stellaris is basically right on the border of grand strategy and 4x. It lacks a lot of what a 4X game has, for a pretty cookie cutter genre, at least, but it probably shares more similarities with something like GalCiv than EU4 or CK2.
 
I am probably "old guard" not sure, I have been here for a while. I used to buy everything PDS on day one, even when it was bugged. I stopped doing so, because I feel there is a lack of polish. I do not mind so much the bug as the half backed features. I do not really know how to describe it, but I feel like recent update feel half done. CK2 or EU4 are in a relative good shape, because they were published before the quality drop, but Stellaris or HoI4 perfectly fall in that sentiment. It feels like they were good ideas that could never be fully implemented and we got an half finished implementation of that vision.

Price is not my problem, I bought all "skin pack" and DLC in the past.

I do not pretend to be objective or right, but that's my feeling with the current PDS.
 
sumdood said:
I don't think PDS has a monopoly on grand strategy, there are others. As others have said, Paradox has always had a poor reputation with patching. They were really turning around though with the release of CK2 and EU4.

But, what is killing them is releasing new DLC and content patches too often. All the shine and polish that comes with the release of the full games isn't being done with the DLC. You can tell their DLC crew is rushed to put a product out there before they complete it. Not just the bugs, but straight up incomplete features. I really appreciate how they keep their games alive after all these years, and how they give away free content--but, they just need to slow it down. There's just a lot of disconnected features that don't really interact with each other on an intuitive level. If they released bigger content at a slower rate, features would be more fleshed out and feel like part of the game, rather than something that's only a bit more than a neat mod.
Click to expand...
They mat not say this but their DLC and bug fixing policy after the fact may also be a soft anti piracy measure ...

Pirates don't get regular automatic updates like paying customers via Steam ...Sure they can still play the game in its 1.0 version but I doubt there are enough committed Pirate uploaders to keep up with their patches .
 
mrwrong said:
They mat not say this but their DLC and bug fixing policy after the fact may also be a soft anti piracy measure ...

Pirates don't get regular automatic updates like paying customers via Steam ...Sure they can still play the game in its 1.0 version but I doubt there are enough committed Pirate uploaders to keep up with their patches .
Click to expand...

well yeah... all games updates are a soft anti-piracy measure.

...i think you might be underestimating the tenacity of pirates.
i remember watching videos when Denuvo was making life hell for 3DM, and 3DM were saying they'd take a break from cracking video games for a year due to denuvo's RNG style encryption being near-impossible to break.
and now denuvo effectively lasts about as long as all the old anti-piracy measures did.
 
Lys91 said:
I am probably "old guard" not sure, I have been here for a while. I used to buy everything PDS on day one, even when it was bugged. I stopped doing so, because I feel there is a lack of polish. I do not mind so much the bug as the half backed features. I do not really know how to describe it, but I feel like recent update feel half done. CK2 or EU4 are in a relative good shape, because they were published before the quality drop, but Stellaris or HoI4 perfectly fall in that sentiment. It feels like they were good ideas that could never be fully implemented and we got an half finished implementation of that vision.

Price is not my problem, I bought all "skin pack" and DLC in the past.

I do not pretend to be objective or right, but that's my feeling with the current PDS.
Click to expand...

My feelings exactly. I've not bought any Stellaris dlc and I suppose I'll just consider it another march of the eagles, as for HOI, I consider that game to be in development and still hold out hope it'll turn out good a year from now.
 
Andrelvis said:
Those are interesting points. The game Imperialism could probably be categorized as Grand Strategy, I imagine.
Click to expand...
That was a good game.
Searching for the successor to Imperialism II was actually what brought me to Europa Universalis III back in 2007.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back