Can we expect a sunset patch on EU IV?

[grotaclas]

I recently release a bugfixing mod which fixes 87 of the bugs which remained in version 1.37.5. But this is just a fraction of the bugs. A lot of the recent content has bugs, especially if your situation is somewhat unusual or you don't play with all DLCs. But the most severe bugs like the crashes can't be fixed by mods

Steam Workshop::grotaclas Bugfixes

steamcommunity.com

 

[grommile]

doubt many players will forgo purchasing EU5 just because PDX has done a horseshit job of maintaining their product over the last year.

Well, yeah.

I'm going to forego purchasing it simply because the start date is 1337 and playing through the prologue to the Black Death in every European campaign is going to get very old very fast.

 

[ancapailldorcha]

That is thinking straight from the dark age of gaming in 2000s, one broken game with flashy features following another broken game with flashy features on a "sell and forget" market. Paradox made it brand by differentiating itself from that. Not that EU IV is a broken game, far from it after years of continuous improvement, but it would benefit from a sunset patch addressing issues that have already been discovered, but no new content that can potentially introduce new issues.

Fixing issues with old games does not make a lot of money directly, but it sustains customer relations and lends credibility to every future release.

So why hasn't EU4 been patched in almost 9 months then?

 

[Jihem]

Well, yeah.

I'm going to forego purchasing it simply because the start date is 1337 and playing through the prologue to the Black Death in every European campaign is going to get very old very fast.

Personally, I'm wary of the game's scripted nature, designed to accurately capture the major historical events of the first 100 years, and the restriction on casus belli. None of this suggests a huge replay value. If this holds true, Paradox would be well advised to leave EU 4 as is, to prevent cautious players from locking themselves into a safe bet while waiting for a significant improvement in EU 5.

 

[honkajoki]

Personally, I'm wary of the game's scripted nature, designed to accurately capture the major historical events of the first 100 years, and the restriction on casus belli. None of this suggests a huge replay value. If this holds true, Paradox would be well advised to leave EU 4 as is, to prevent cautious players from locking themselves into a safe bet while waiting for a significant improvement in EU 5.

Wouldn't it be better to keep fixing EU4, so that those players who are not initially satisfied with EU5 stay with the brand, instead of drifting to other games.

Also, EU5 is not releasing yet, there would be plenty of time to play patched EU4 before the release. Even if the release was postponed a bit due to dev effort being directed to EU4, it would still be worth it as it would keep more players within the brand and thus more interested in buying EU5. An active EU4 player is more likely to buy EU5 than one who has drifted to other games.

 

[ancapailldorcha]

Wouldn't it be better to keep fixing EU4, so that those players who are not initially satisfied with EU5 stay with the brand, instead of drifting to other games.

Also, EU5 is not releasing yet, there would be plenty of time to play patched EU4 before the release. Even if the release was postponed a bit due to dev effort being directed to EU4, it would still be worth it as it would keep more players within the brand and thus more interested in buying EU5. An active EU4 player is more likely to buy EU5 than one who has drifted to other games.

No. Tinto has a finite amount of staff, time, and resources. It makes much more sense to make the big new title the best it can be than to patch an old game at the end of its development cycle. The fact that the last patch for EU IV was in October proves my point.

 

[To the Star]

I still remember that Johan once said they will focus on fixing bugs and when eu4 reaches eol, it will end with no major bugs.

I hope pdx will keep their promises.

Oh, here: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...elopment-diary-16th-of-november-2021.1498081/

 

[Mik1984]

No. Tinto has a finite amount of staff, time, and resources. It makes much more sense to make the big new title the best it can be than to patch an old game at the end of its development cycle. The fact that the last patch for EU IV was in October proves my point.

It only proves that someone is sharing your logic, not that it is valid.

Also, it is not resources alone that ensure a game is the best it can be. Games made in what I call "the dark age of gaming" had immensely larger resources than much simpler games made in the 90s, and yet if any of the biggest AAA releases of that era weren't broken, bugged and incomplete, that was an exception to the norm. What was noticeable, is that this attitude NEVER took hold in utility software, it was only game producers that considered technical debt unserious.

Not patching up outstanding issues with EU IV, based on the logic above, predicts negatively the quality of EU V, even if it allows for some resources, because it is a technical culture that we remember where it ends from history and what quality of products it delivers, even under conditions of immense resource boost.

 

[gianlucad]

The saddest part is you can't even expect an EU4 complete pack because they will just push the subscription option instead to not compete with EU5, as happend with Crusader Kings II.

 

[ancapailldorcha]

It only proves that someone is sharing your logic, not that it is valid.

Also, it is not resources alone that ensure a game is the best it can be. Games made in what I call "the dark age of gaming" had immensely larger resources than much simpler games made in the 90s, and yet if any of the biggest AAA releases of that era weren't broken, bugged and incomplete, that was an exception to the norm. What was noticeable, is that this attitude NEVER took hold in utility software, it was only game producers that considered technical debt unserious.

Not patching up outstanding issues with EU IV, based on the logic above, predicts negatively the quality of EU V, even if it allows for some resources, because it is a technical culture that we remember where it ends from history and what quality of products it delivers, even under conditions of immense resource boost.

My point is true. You can complain all you want but that doesn't change this simple fact.

Several utility software packages are rife with bugs such as the one I've been using for the past decade or so. Not a great comparison.

If EU IV does or does not get patched again is nothing whatsoever to do with the quality of EU V. If anything, it shows that EU V might be a bit better on launch as it'll have more people working on it.

 

[Dunner]

If EU IV does or does not get patched again is nothing whatsoever to do with the quality of EU V. If anything, it shows that EU V might be a bit better on launch as it'll have more people working on it.

Agreed, but it does say something about the developer. Introducing major game-breaking bugs in the final DLC only to cut-and-run before fixing those bugs is not a good look and does speak to how problems might be addressed in the future.

For a fun bit of mental masturbation, consider the what-if scenario of the EU5 launch looking something like Imperator’s. If EU5 flops will PDX drop it and run without maintaining it? Historically, I’d have said no, even with IR, there have been periodic patches, but after the fiasco that has been EU4s end-of-life I’m not so sure anymore.

Another recent development I find particularly telling is Johan’s recent statement that EU5 will only support Windows and Steam. PDX has clearly decided that other users aren’t profitable enough to support.

 

[honkajoki]

If EU IV does or does not get patched again is nothing whatsoever to do with the quality of EU V. If anything, it shows that EU V might be a bit better on launch as it'll have more people working on it.

It has a lot to do with customers' expectation of the quality of EUV. If not at launch, then at end of EUV's lifecycle. Why trust that they'd do well there if they can't do well here.

 

[ancapailldorcha]

Agreed, but it does say something about the developer. Introducing major game-breaking bugs in the final DLC only to cut-and-run before fixing those bugs is not a good look and does speak to how problems might be addressed in the future.

For a fun bit of mental masturbation, consider the what-if scenario of the EU5 launch looking something like Imperator’s. If EU5 flops will PDX drop it and run without maintaining it? Historically, I’d have said no, even with IR, there have been periodic patches, but after the fiasco that has been EU4s end-of-life I’m not so sure anymore.

Another recent development I find particularly telling is Johan’s recent statement that EU5 will only support Windows and Steam. PDX has clearly decided that other users aren’t profitable enough to support.

Maybe. If it does, how long will people remember that once EU V hits and they're playing that? How many people still think about the disaster that was Leviathan? Did that adversely affect sales of Origins or any other DLC's?

If coding the game for Mac users is a pain and most of the player base is on Steam and Windows then this makes sense. I don't see what the problem is.

It has a lot to do with customers' expectation of the quality of EUV. If not at launch, then at end of EUV's lifecycle. Why trust that they'd do well there if they can't do well here.

How many people are going to remember this at the end of EU V's life cycle?

 

[Dunner]

If coding the game for Mac users is a pain and most of the player base is on Steam and Windows then this makes sense. I don't see what the problem

I’m not saying this is necessarily a bad decision. But the announcement speaks two things to me: 1.) The fact that PDX is making this decision is indicative that the bean-counters are influencing development and we’ll likely see more decisions like this in the future 2.) The fact that EU5 won’t support alternate OSs likely means that there won’t be any attention from PDX to fix the EU4 Mac bugs despite the support Mac users have historically enjoyed.

 

[honkajoki]

How many people are going to remember this at the end of EU V's life cycle?

Some. The thing is that many remember it now, so some of them don't want to get into EU5 because they don't want the same experience, even if it is a decade or so away. Some may forget and buy at later point, but some will think "why haven't I bought this before" and remember. I don't know how many are many or some, it may well be that PDX has done estimates of those and thought that the numbers are so small they don't matter to them. It may be they're wrong, but it's of course impossible to verify the reasons why some potential customers don't buy.

 

[Ujin]

Proton on Linux is now working quite well, it is uncertain that Linux version of the games is now needed at all

 

[Mik1984]

Some. The thing is that many remember it now, so some of them don't want to get into EU5 because they don't want the same experience, even if it is a decade or so away. Some may forget and buy at later point, but some will think "why haven't I bought this before" and remember. I don't know how many are many or some, it may well be that PDX has done estimates of those and thought that the numbers are so small they don't matter to them. It may be they're wrong, but it's of course impossible to verify the reasons why some potential customers don't buy.

Remember that a lot of formerly biggest studios are now considered disreputable. Ubisoft, Eletronic Ars, Creative Assembly, Piranha Bytes etc.

Companies like Paradox rose on taking the market share from these companies. Ethics, credibility, continuous improvement and taking technical debt in its products seriously is why that happened.

You absolutely can run even a biggest studio into the ground by losing credibility and hyperfocus on just milking the customers. The logic of a of a stereotypical yellow tie MBA graduate is how you run a company into the ground in the long run.

Sometimes what doesn't make money directly, maintains your internal company culture, attracts appropriate people to join your employee ranks and grows a loyal fanbase.

 

[ancapailldorcha]

Some. The thing is that many remember it now, so some of them don't want to get into EU5 because they don't want the same experience, even if it is a decade or so away. Some may forget and buy at later point, but some will think "why haven't I bought this before" and remember. I don't know how many are many or some, it may well be that PDX has done estimates of those and thought that the numbers are so small they don't matter to them. It may be they're wrong, but it's of course impossible to verify the reasons why some potential customers don't buy.

That's a very tiny demographic though. People have short memories.

I've been burned by buying Graveyard of Empires. I actually cancelled my preorder for the next Vic 3 expansion pack as a result. It could be that people will remember this but I have my doubts given that EU IV looks knackered while EU V is all shiny and ready to go.

 

[Nyrael]

I used to hold PDX in high regard for their continued maintenance of end-of-life games. Those efforts seem to have died off in the last year or two, if I had to guess I'd suspect that leadership changes in the last few years have changed the companies focus back to fatter profit margins.

I still hold out some hope that one or more of the developers will make EU4 maintenance a side project and release a patch now and then for the next year or two but I'm no longer holding my breath that we'll get any meaningful updates.

Nothing really changed leadership-wise, and PDX isn't too much of a stranger of just abandoning games (Sengoku and MotE especially come to mind, Sengoku even has an entire window for Religious Decicions which do not even exist in-game).
Imperator recently got a patch so it's not impossible for the game to get a patch here and there if individual developers feel that way. But for the moment, I imagine that all of them are more interested in working on EU5 and making sure it's cooked as well as possible. Even if an official patch is in the works, it's development will be slowed down.

I mean, yeah, the company went public in 2016, and the prior CEO stepped down in 2021 (followed shortly by the cancellation of 15 games to focus on 'proven niches'), so take that as you will.

What happened in 2021 was NOT the "good old CEO replaced by an evil new CEO", but the opposite. What happened in 2021 was RETURN of the CEO who had been leading Paradox since before it went public.

People are so used to "this company went foul after X" that they now apply it everywhere. Paradox Interactive had always been a bit of a hot mess of a publisher. I still remember long ago (12 to 15 years ago) when they had like 20 games in production, and nearly all of them failed or got cancelled (due to mismanagement IMO).