A Message to Paradox

[Nuclear Elvis]

On a more regular basis, I find myself choosing to play your older/finished games only at this point -- EU3, CK2, HOI 2 or 3, Vicky 2 -- and it's mostly because I know what the game is, and that it won't turn chameleon on me and change, and is stable.

I say this - in the face of all the tremendous churn in your games right now, some the newer versions of the aforementioned games -- some with mounds of bugs/quirks to fix, improvements being made (but come with changes to game play), yet more DLCs (that can add to the mounds of bugs and quirks also aforementioned), and Lions and Tigers and Bears - Oh My.

Are you Chasing The Fire? Has the Company tried to take a moment, take a step back, look itself in the mirror, and say to your Collective selves - Are We On The Right Track?

There's more to life than worrying about the profit margins of your Public Company's next reporting Quarter, to ensure the US SEC 10-Q will impress Shareholders. Have you considered - you may be "trying too hard" in terms of the direction of your efforts?

Game Play. That's really what matters. Graphics, UI improvements - miniscule in contrast. Give me original Zork text-based game, and I can still make an enjoyable night out of it, because -- Game Play.

I've been in Video Games since the 1970s. I've supported other Game Developers and Game Publishers. For the life of me, I don't know why a Game Developer and Publisher would want to become a Public Company with shares of stock in the market - but you did it. Probably feels like Entrapment to some of the long-term Paradox employees.

I haven't ever posted here in your General Discussion forum - may not ever again. I'm not here to just argue with your loyal customers, because I am a loyal customer myself. I'm just not loyal to what I see happening to Paradox. When I further support you monetarily - is it really going to help, or would be parallel to buying drugs for an addict? You'll always want more, after all.

The person in Paradox that I feel for more than any other is @Johan because I'm sure there's a lot of second guessing and questioning of corporate strategy at this point.

You're trying - we know you are. I see it in the weekly Dev Diary for EU4, with your efforts to crank out Mission Tree after Mission Tree and other changes. But I have no desire to play EU4 now or anytime soon. In fact, I may not play EU4 again until you publish the base game for EU5, when I know that EU4 development is finished and you're no longer changing it -- with a caveat, that I would only play if the End Product is a decent game at that point.

I don't even mind original Crusader Kings, in all its cartooney glory, but - CK2 in its final glory is too much a Masterpiece to pass up. I've said this in another way in the Forum here, but that's what we need from you - "Masterpiece" games, not just finished product, but Excellent product. Products that far exceed the quality of your peers.

Hopping off my soapbox. Frustrated. You have so much Potential, but Potential isn't the same as your Current Condition.

 

[elektrizikekswerk]

CK2 in its final glory is too much a Masterpiece to pass up.

And how many DLC, minor ones but also game changing ones, were needed for that?
This example of yours for being a masterpiece is also one example for the success of the process you loath.

 

[Tullaris]

On a more regular basis, I find myself choosing to play your older/finished games only at this point -- EU3, CK2, HOI 2 or 3, Vicky 2 -- and it's mostly because I know what the game is, and that it won't turn chameleon on me and change, and is stable.

I say this - in the face of all the tremendous churn in your games right now, some the newer versions of the aforementioned games -- some with mounds of bugs/quirks to fix, improvements being made (but come with changes to game play), yet more DLCs (that can add to the mounds of bugs and quirks also aforementioned), and Lions and Tigers and Bears - Oh My.

Are you Chasing The Fire? Has the Company tried to take a moment, take a step back, look itself in the mirror, and say to your Collective selves - Are We On The Right Track?

There's more to life than worrying about the profit margins of your Public Company's next reporting Quarter, to ensure the US SEC 10-Q will impress Shareholders. Have you considered - you may be "trying too hard" in terms of the direction of your efforts?

Game Play. That's really what matters. Graphics, UI improvements - miniscule in contrast. Give me original Zork text-based game, and I can still make an enjoyable night out of it, because -- Game Play.

I've been in Video Games since the 1970s. I've supported other Game Developers and Game Publishers. For the life of me, I don't know why a Game Developer and Publisher would want to become a Public Company with shares of stock in the market - but you did it. Probably feels like Entrapment to some of the long-term Paradox employees.

I haven't ever posted here in your General Discussion forum - may not ever again. I'm not here to just argue with your loyal customers, because I am a loyal customer myself. I'm just not loyal to what I see happening to Paradox. When I further support you monetarily - is it really going to help, or would be parallel to buying drugs for an addict? You'll always want more, after all.

The person in Paradox that I feel for more than any other is @Johan because I'm sure there's a lot of second guessing and questioning of corporate strategy at this point.

You're trying - we know you are. I see it in the weekly Dev Diary for EU4, with your efforts to crank out Mission Tree after Mission Tree and other changes. But I have no desire to play EU4 now or anytime soon. In fact, I may not play EU4 again until you publish the base game for EU5, when I know that EU4 development is finished and you're no longer changing it -- with a caveat, that I would only play if the End Product is a decent game at that point.

I don't even mind original Crusader Kings, in all its cartooney glory, but - CK2 in its final glory is too much a Masterpiece to pass up. I've said this in another way in the Forum here, but that's what we need from you - "Masterpiece" games, not just finished product, but Excellent product. Products that far exceed the quality of your peers.

Hopping off my soapbox. Frustrated. You have so much Potential, but Potential isn't the same as your Current Condition.

I think you have massive rose tinted glasses there. EU3, HOI3 and vicky 2 at release were massively flawed games and by all accounts still are.

Also I find your critisism weird considering CK3 released barely a year ago to universal acclaim (a 91 metacritic score) and commercial succes, pretty much the best PDX release till now. Most negative reviews are people that are complaining there is TOO LITTLE DLC rather than too much.

Now I agree they might have streched EU4 on for too long, but you can't just expect to play a game endlessly regardless of how much is added. However by the looks at it they are continuing developing EU4 to give new employees experience.

Also going public or not has no impact if your majority shareholders are still the same. I think at their IPO they only sold like 20% of their existing shares to new shareholders, so that has very little impact on the choices the company makes.

The reality is, for any game company out there, its hard to make excellent games. Sometimes things just dont work out. Look at any game company around for more than 10 years, they will have hit and misses. The same for Paradox. It's a creative industry. Making excellent games is just not something you can direct from the top. If only it were that easy.

 

[Nuclear Elvis]

I think you have massive rose tinted glasses there. EU3, HOI3 and vicky 2 at release were massively flawed games and by all accounts still are.

Also I find your critisism weird considering CK3 released barely a year ago to universal acclaim (a 91 metacritic score) and commercial succes, pretty much the best PDX release till now. Most negative reviews are people that are complaining there is TOO LITTLE DLC rather than too much.

Now I agree they might have streched EU4 on for too long, but you can't just expect to play a game endlessly regardless of how much is added. However by the looks at it they are continuing developing EU4 to give new employees experience.

Also going public or not has no impact if your majority shareholders are still the same. I think at their IPO they only sold like 20% of their existing shares to new shareholders, so that has very little impact on the choices the company makes.

The reality is, for any game company out there, its hard to make excellent games. Sometimes things just dont work out. Look at any game company around for more than 10 years, they will have hit and misses. The same for Paradox. It's a creative industry. Making excellent games is just not something you can direct from the top. If only it were that easy.

I would not consider the current ratings of CK3 to be any more indicative than an Early Access Game's reviews at this point. First edition/base games from Paradox amount to an Early Access Game (EAG) period in terms of the game's lifecycle, and EAG reviews trend toward fan club purchasers who are always optimistic even if they are critical of the current state of the game, which is far from complete. You actually made this point - by showing that there is over 90% approval yet disappointment with the amount of content/lack of DLCs in the current CK3 game. Is that satisfaction and a favorable review - or wishful thinking of a biased first-to-purchase consumer? Myself and many other Paradox customers have not bought CK3 yet, so our cautionary approach to the game and our more objective criticism is withheld from the current review/rating process. I'd say a Paradox Game's true rating average is never really settled until the game is complete, with no further DLC in the offering. With the game industry changing more toward this Base Game-then-DLCs (until sales dry up) - you can't rely on any Metacritic score for the base game only, it's becoming more irrelevant the more that DLCs become the norm. Show me the completed product and get refreshed critique and scoring from only after 100% finished product, and then it may be useful data.

Public Company ownership certainly does change things. I wonder how much influence there was from the Board of Directors toward the former CEO resigning from her leadership position, as example, and how much was due to company performance as a now-public company with obligations for keeping-up-with-the-Joneses (among fellow public companies). Profits have to trend at or better than peers in the industry, and if you want to really succeed - trend higher than outside-of-sector businesses as well. Continually "beating the Estimates" each quarter can be a drain from top-to-bottom of public companies. Lots of burnout trying to satisfy shareholders (especially the Institutional Investors, and/or Equity firms that may buy millions of shares in a Private Offering outside the market). I think the many-DLCs approach to building and expanding Paradox games has become a norm that may hurt their ability to develop and publish a game that is "finished product" from onset, as example, and this could become a bad habit for the Designers who work for Paradox. How much more precise of Design and Code-writing - if you needed to make a deadline and finish the product the first time, as if there were no DLCs or continual patches to fix your QA problems? This could be in itself a problem in the making for the long-term health of the company and the quality-level of their games. I've argued in other forums/posts, that Paradox's #1 priority for new hires should be to bring in Game Designers to complement Johan, be mentored by him, and ensure these younger Designers are themselves considered "Grand Strategists" of the highest order, because it takes a "Master Grand Strategist" to build a masterpiece of a Grand Strategy game. The Design and Game Play matter most to the majority of Paradox's customers, with graphics/GUI/music work representing a much smaller concern. Nice to have, but pixels and music are just the icing on the cake - but the cake matters most.

I'm not disagreeing with you in terms of the tough road that game companies have, especially long term, but many of them fail because they had a routine that ultimately became their downfall. The routine that initially worked - didn't work 10-20 years later, for varying reasons. I loved Sierra Games' LOTR2 and especially the voice acting that was hilarious, but I put in more time in LOTR2 with the audio muted yet enjoying the Game Play, and in spite of its pixilation. LOTR3 came around and it was more visually appealing than LOTR2, yet a flop due to Game Play, and no DLCs back then to save it, and when you flopped really badly in the Boxed Games era, you didn't get a chance for the add-on Expansion Box. Sierra Games was in a pattern of only having 1 hit game out of 4 releases, and they could get-by at that rate, but the market caught up with them, in that the costs for each successive game release required a higher success rate - that they couldn't meet. Sierra Games doesn't exist any more, partly because there were as many flops as there were hits. The DLC era will probably come to an end also, as consumers will find game companies that release a very detailed product the first time and gravitate toward that again, instead of being loyal customers hoping for some game-changing improvement in a future DLC from their current most-favorite game company. And who will turn that type of product out? Companies with the best combination of Game Designers and Code Writers with built-in QA sense that result in high quality games from initial release that need no additional DLCs to be considered "complete" and have minimal polishing to do once in the market. Those companies will probably employ high-levels of talent and use AI to help diagnose the code along the way in creative ways we aren't even thinking of yet.

And I wouldn't call my glasses "rose-tinted" - they're coated with the waste product of the Flux Capacitor - futurist intended. It's looking at the Past to help change the Future, but also from a reference point as to what was "quality product" and expectations of that moment in time - "Thinking In Time" (and there's a book for would-be futurists/strategists of that title...). There is still time to change Paradox's future, but without Marty McFly and a well-equipped DeLorean - the present is the only time that such change can occur.