-
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.
In the last few months I have seen more and more posts from an assortment of Paradox Dev Team members, a great thing indeed! But what is Johan working on?
He seems eerily quiet of late...
some secret project?
He seems eerily quiet of late...
some secret project?
Probably busy changing around the data in the EU3 Strange Screenshot ghost pages...
Is that joke too old now since CK2 has been announced?
I think Johan has sort of moved upstairs into a 'Director of Football' type role.
That's what I was thinking, he is just focusing on grand strategy.
Well, could you kindly ask them to visit this thread and tell us something? Because, you know, this situation starts to remind me of some publishers here in Russia, who were holding back patches for third-party-developed products for not-so-good purpose, as it had been revealed later.
ADragonsFang is right, even "We don't have a fixed date yet" would be better than the silence.
Patches delivered out of the blue when they are "ready" just doesn't get released immediately.
They need to be QA'd and scheduled into the release at lots of platforms...
Paradox has become my favorite developer studio, and its obvious its a company thats made out of people who care very much about their games and games in general. Very often companies like this evolve and some "other guy" takes charge, and takes the company in a whole different direction....usually towards a more profit based policy. This often involve simplifying game mechanics making it more easy for "casual gamers" to get into. (I really hate that term) This always results in massive rage from the playerbase, and praise from people who are new to the franchise.
I guess a good example is the Creative Assembly and what they have done to their franchise, and 2K Boston and Bioshock. Obviously the mechanics in System shock would have been too difficult for the mainstream /casuals or whatever, and as a result Bioshock was simplified dramatically compared with Shock2
What are the chances of this happening to Paradox? Please say slim to none. (and please give me a hug)
I guess a good example is the Creative Assembly and what they have done to their franchise, and 2K Boston and Bioshock. Obviously the mechanics in System shock would have been too difficult for the mainstream /casuals or whatever, and as a result Bioshock was simplified dramatically compared with Shock2
What are the chances of this happening to Paradox? Please say slim to none. (and please give me a hug)
Slim to none.
Before Microsofts press conference at E3 I was convinced they were going to announce a "middle ground" initiative but instead the opposite direction and left us with a gaming landscape that is even more polarized.
Today people are either pushing big AAA products or they focusing on Kinect/casual games. At the same time we see the big publishers begin to withdraw from Steam - as they want to sell their content directly to the user.
This means that there's a huge swath in the middle for Paradox - both as a publisher and a developer where we have room to grow.
We will keep making smart games for smart people. Johan and the team will keep pushing out the most complex and rewarding strategy games on the market while Paradox publishing will focus on games that other publishers wouldn't dare release.
We're talking about games like Magicka, Mount & Blade, Salem, Cities in Motion, Project Postman and more. I'm dying to reveal more of our upcoming games.
Open platforms - where we have great control over the content (updates, patches, DLC etc) will continue to be our focus - this means that besides the beloved PC you'll see more Paradox games on iPads, iPhones and Android mobiles - but it will be hardcore games (noticed that there are very few hardcore strategy games on those devices?
You'll also see more games on consoles - but open platforms - especially PC is where our heart is.
Hope that answered your question.
Sincerely,
Shams
Before Microsofts press conference at E3 I was convinced they were going to announce a "middle ground" initiative but instead the opposite direction and left us with a gaming landscape that is even more polarized.
Today people are either pushing big AAA products or they focusing on Kinect/casual games. At the same time we see the big publishers begin to withdraw from Steam - as they want to sell their content directly to the user.
This means that there's a huge swath in the middle for Paradox - both as a publisher and a developer where we have room to grow.
We will keep making smart games for smart people. Johan and the team will keep pushing out the most complex and rewarding strategy games on the market while Paradox publishing will focus on games that other publishers wouldn't dare release.
We're talking about games like Magicka, Mount & Blade, Salem, Cities in Motion, Project Postman and more. I'm dying to reveal more of our upcoming games.
Open platforms - where we have great control over the content (updates, patches, DLC etc) will continue to be our focus - this means that besides the beloved PC you'll see more Paradox games on iPads, iPhones and Android mobiles - but it will be hardcore games (noticed that there are very few hardcore strategy games on those devices?
You'll also see more games on consoles - but open platforms - especially PC is where our heart is.
Hope that answered your question.
Sincerely,
Shams
Would there ever be the danger that publishing and develpment will split and become separate companies?
Which strikes me as madness. I hope that Paradox have no plans to follow suit?
The big publishers are entirely correct to do so IMHO - they have the catalogs to support such a bold move.
I honestly think they'll come out on top - They'll lose perhaps 10-15% potential customers - but will make that up many times over by not having to pay steam their cut - and I think they'll follow up with an aggressive DLC campaign -which will just further mitigate any potential steam losses.
After all it's BF3 - People are still going to play it.
We've got no plans for following suit - it just makes very poor business sense to pull entirely from steam - but offering a non-steam alternative is still very important.
But the next few years are going to be great for Paradox on Steam - especially because big publishers are moving off and we're filling their shoes.
/s
I honestly think they'll come out on top - They'll lose perhaps 10-15% potential customers - but will make that up many times over by not having to pay steam their cut - and I think they'll follow up with an aggressive DLC campaign -which will just further mitigate any potential steam losses.
After all it's BF3 - People are still going to play it.
We've got no plans for following suit - it just makes very poor business sense to pull entirely from steam - but offering a non-steam alternative is still very important.
But the next few years are going to be great for Paradox on Steam - especially because big publishers are moving off and we're filling their shoes.
/s
There had to have been some financial incentive for using distributors in the first place (since no business decision is made if there is no potential for profit), but, having said that, I simply cannot see how using DDs is profitable for the game makers.
The way I see it, distributors purchase rights to sell your product, where then that price is increased to provide the DD with their cut. But if Paradox, for example, would sell directly to its customers (at the suggested retail price), well then that is just more revenue for you guys whilst cutting out the leeching Steam variants and lessening customer stress in the process. Perhaps my working knowledge in this is way off, but it just makes sense to stream-line things (ie., developer --> customer = no leeching 3rd parties).
I, for one, hope Paradox does drop Steam and other DDs and sells directly from your own sites (is GamersGate still yours, or did you sell it?). There is simply too much regulation and especially restrictions just to buy a game; for example, one DD has one title but not the 'other' title, where the 'other' title is available only through a different DD. And one DD cannot update a product purchased from a different DD... Why so much red tape? :wacko:
Paradox has become my favorite game developer/publisher. And I want to go to your site only to purchase your titles. Period.
Except that Steam is not just a distributor, it's also a marketplace. Access to this provides obvious potential for increased sales. Which is why I'd have to disagree with Shams: I just don't see most customers installing 3-4 company specific clients, or otherwise abandoning the ease of using Steam
That is why he said BIG companies. Companies that have games that people will install their client to play, after all steam makes you install a client, so if you don't like clients you are going to go with an alternative retailer that does not.
Also this is exactly how Steam got started. It was started to sell and DRM HL2. It worked for them, so if say EA does it with their new ORIGIN system for something like Sims franchise(the number 1 selling PC game) I don't think they will have any worries.
The presence of a client isn't the problem (I think we can automatically ignore those holdouts who refuse to use any client-based DD at all). The problem is having half a dozen clients in order to access half a dozen catalogues. Nobody wants their system tray clogged up with 3-4 clients, getting pop up promotions from several companies or having their game library split across several clients
The outcome of what these big companies are pushing (using AAA series as battering rams) is the Balkanisation (or 'consolisation') of the DD market. It makes sense for the publishers, in that they're no longer paying Valve X%, but it doesn't make sense for the customer. Nor, I'd suggest, does it make sense for the industry as a whole
Of course Valve have the advantage in that they got there first and have put together an excellent product. Now I'm not exactly comfortable with the idea of a monopoly over client-based DD but, from my perspective as a consumer, it is remarkably easy for me to use. I've got a games library, multiplayer tool and vast marketplace all in the one place. There's absolutely no reason for me to split this across two (or more!) clients - hence the imperative for EA and the like to force me to move via exclusive deals
Personally, I don't think that many people will move or embrace this 'multi-client' notion
That's great news, those platforms are now technologically ready to take a great deal of Paradox' hardcore goodness
I forgot to mention the client thing earlier. So you've never been inconvenienced by the client-lock? If your client-tied game has an expansion available at a lower price from a different DD with a different client or no client, then you're out of luck. Sale events cycle I know, but shouldn't the consumer decide where and when to buy? Imagine a Steam library --just as you have it-- but without the client lock? I suspect your library might be a bit different (larger maybe?) than it is today.
I agree with this. Yet, a multi- [of a bad thing] is not good at all. In fact, an "a-client" mechanism is what I'm hoping to see more of. Steam can always continue to provide their users the atmosphere their customers have come to like (black browser, library format, manuals, tech support, autoupdates, etc), but to lock them into buying steam-only products just seems unfair to the market-dwelling (ie internet surfing) consumer who seeks a better price.