A few words on DLCs

[delpiero1234]

According to tests by multiple people (read this thread), the newly-released AoW DLC includes the speed optimization. This means that people who didn't buy the DLC have a slower game. Your DLC policy is more than questionable in my opinion. Why don't you include speed optimizations in the free patch? Oh wait, it forces people who want a fast running game to buy the DLC. I wonder for how long this policy will remain successful.

 

[Jamey]

A few thoughts and comments:

I prefer the DLC model to the older Expansion model.

The number of DLCs is a pain, specifically:

• It clutters up the sale list on Steam in a crazy way
• Some of my friends have been put off by the list and figuring out what they need/want
• Steam's UI sucks rocks for dealing with them. You cannot select multiples and buy in a batch, it's all or one

That said, I like lots of DLCs because I can wait for a sale for DLCs I find less desirable.

Currently, my problem has been unstable releases, not that they are DLCs. The releases are way better than in the old days, but some major bugs seem to always slip out.

On the plus side, I greatly appreciate the beta usage on Steam, both for keeping old versions available and getting emergency patches out ASAP.

 

[DunkFunk]

The DLC policy is a huge win for the consumer. Those wanting a return to the old ways of a $30 expansion that i HAVE to buy in order to keep up with the patches is obscene, the new system is the way of the future. I buy what i want and more often than not its on sale 6 months later for half price or more. Keep up the good work paradox and make a decent napoleonic game.

 

[loup99]

I think it is a good model on the whole and that, as you said in the OP, the problem rely in the presentation in the shop, especially Steam. As an independant company that does only use Steam as a reselling platform, I'm not sure on how much you can impact on the Steam Shop itself, but I do have some suggestions/concerns.

It would be good if the DLC's were divided into sections in the shop were one could see only all major DLC in one section, all the cosmetic DLC in another and the music packs in a third one, to simply be able to find them easier and sort them out. Another good thing would be if Steam clearly stated in the shop that the stuff were modular and that it is not like your old expansion-model or as in other companies as I think that can scare off a lot of new customers that are noy used to it and wonder if they need to pay 100$ extra to have a good, functioning game with continious suppport. Having expansion packs putting together everything that you release at the same time in one, for example a ROI-package with DLC, music or an AoW-package with DLC, cosmetics and music in one would also simplify thing a lot too.

For ROI I think it ws good that you included the indian portraits, but I'm doubting if including the unit packs in CM was a good idea. Personally, I would had prefered having the early portraits in it, that affect the visual of the game a lot more than unit packs that you only see while zooming in on the terrain map once in while. They are beatiful art, but not veruy necessary for game experience, to the countrary of the portaits packs that give immersion. Without any sale the portaits packs may be a bit costly, but with one they are at a good price and worth it as they make the CK2 game a lot more enjoyable and immersive. A lot of people in CK2 forums were wondering why at launch CM was costing 15€ as it was a smaller expansion than the previous ones and as it was not clearly stated anywhere that you were charged 5€ for units DLC's.

I do have another question though, in the OP you do not mention the flavour-packs and preorder stuff that was available for EU4 at launch. Is this something that you plan on continuing with?

According to tests by multiple people (read this thread), the newly-released AoW DLC includes the speed optimization. This means that people who didn't buy the DLC have a slower game. Your DLC policy is more than questionable in my opinion. Why don't you include speed optimizations in the free patch? Oh wait, it forces people who want a fast running game to buy the DLC. I wonder for how long this policy will remain successful.

Completely wrong and unfounded, an issue with the patch is most likely the cause of this. Otherwise, if you do not know the DLC model, you would notice that that is not the case and that it is probably an accidental thing related to compressing and computer specs. If they had changed the model, they would had posted about it here or with the "paid" features section. We all know that patches can include bugs and have unintentional issue and 1.8 does not seem like an exception. On someones Linux it was the same with or without and someone else had problems with AoW so it is absolutely not onesided. If anyhthing, that post belongs to the bugreports section to help the devs to work out that issue as soon as possible.

 

[nalfz]

The DLC policy is a huge win for the consumer.

(this doesn't even include the base game)

 

[Augustus93]

I have to be honest, I really liked the idea at the beginning of this DLCs. But seeing how it was implemented I have to say that I think the old expansion model was much better.

 

[Wizzington]

According to tests by multiple people (read this thread), the newly-released AoW DLC includes the speed optimization. This means that people who didn't buy the DLC have a slower game. Your DLC policy is more than questionable in my opinion. Why don't you include speed optimizations in the free patch? Oh wait, it forces people who want a fast running game to buy the DLC. I wonder for how long this policy will remain successful.

I can't believe I even have to address this, but no, we have not done any expansion-only optimization.

I tested the claim that the game is faster with AoW enabled and got the same speed with and without. We'll test it on a few more machines to make sure there isn't some actual glitch here, and if there is we'll fix it.

 

[Deleted member 471407]

This thread is quickly going towards discussion whether our model is the right one or not.

I dare to say it's impossible to find a model that would please everyone (except one where we give everyone everything and no one had to pay for anything, but this is not quite viable I'm afraid).
I asked for this post to be made so that we could have one central place where we could direct people and where they could see how we look at things. This is what we decided upon for now, and it's not up for a direct debate. We don't have time to defend it individually to everyone of our players. No matter how much we wish we had the time to talk one on one with all of you, It's not possible.

I recommend everyone to express their opinions (in a creative way) and to "vote with their wallets".

Thank you for being so passionate and caring! All you who express negativity around how we do things obviously still care a lot, and for that we are eternally grateful. I can assure you that we are doing our best to find a way that we feel is the best for you, our players, while still being financially viable so that we can continue doing what we want. Which is making games and keep improving on those we already released.

I will have to lock this thread for now!

Best Regards
Björn